                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                          August, 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

                          AUGUST, 1989

FROM THE EDITOR'S MAILBASKET:

POSTSCRIPT TO THE ARTICLE ON  THE FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND
THE BLIND

MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE 
FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

BLINDNESS AND THE USE OF PARTIAL VISION
  by Alfred P. Maneki, Ph.D.

COUNCIL OF UNITED STATES DOG GUIDE SCHOOLS HOLDS MEETING

CITY DISCUSSES AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH FEDERATION

ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS, MAY YET GO CUCKOO

TIME TO SWITCH PARTNERS AGAIN IN VIRGINIA
  by Barbara Pierce

BLIND: THEN AND NOW
  by Catherine Horn Randall

MAINE CENTER FOR THE BLIND RESENTS SEEING THE TRUTH IN PRINT 

J.O.B. CONTINUES TO CHANGE LIVES

PROCLAMATION

AS THE TWIG IS BENT

SOME PHILOSOPHIZING ON ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES
  by Jana Moynihan

LITIGATION FILED AGAINST CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES

CONFLICTING UNPROFESSIONAL ADVICE ABOUT BRAILLE

USA TODAY COVERS AIRLINE ISSUE

JIM WALKER DIES
  by Kenneth Jernigan

RECIPES
  by Lori Duffy

MONITOR MINIATURES


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

                 FROM THE EDITOR'S MAILBASKET: 
POSTSCRIPT TO THE ARTICLE ON THE 
FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND
                                                Robert C. Kellogg
                                              4325 Bedford Avenue
                                            Omaha, Nebraska 68111

Kenneth Jernigan, Editor
 The Braille Monitor 
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Mr. Jernigan:
I read the March 1989 issue of the  Monitor  as is my habit.  I
have friends and acquaintances that have graced the  Monitor 's
pages in the past few issues (Cathy Horn Randall, Barb Walker and
Laurie Eckery) so I frequently put aside my daily tasks for a
moment of leisure reading. This month was no exception.
I was shocked to read the article castigating the Florida School
for the Deaf and Blind. I was very disappointed to find such
yellow journalism in the pages of the  Monitor ... particularly
when the purpose of the article was to score points against your
old nemesis, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped. The article was also
unsigned... which sends the message that it reflected Federation
policy.
I am afraid that you did not score a hit on NAC. NAC clearly
knows your view of their work. Instead, you have send a torpedo
into a school that has, for more than one hundred years, served
blind and deaf students.  Many of those students are members of
your organization or other consumer directed advocacy
organizations like the National Association of the Deaf.
Robert Dawson, the President of the Florida School for the Deaf
and Blind is a close personal friend of more than twenty years. I
have discussed the incidents that are outlined in your article
with him on more than one occasion. He is truly committed to
solving those problems caused, not entirely by the internal
situation at FSDB but, also by benign neglect of the funding
agency... the Florida Legislature.  For many decades, our
residential schools served bright and motivated students like
those represented in the  Monitor 's pages. Today, however, these
schools serve a very different mix of students. These students
include the severely handicapped, those who have a long history
of failure in other educational programs and even some who in
earlier times would have been denied entry as morally unfit. Gone
are the days when one dormitory staffer... no matter how
committed... can handle twenty-five of these students.
The article quotes grand jury testimony which if it were true,
would surely have led to charges being filed. The only answer
must be that the quoted testimony was not believable. Depending
on the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
report would be like getting a true picture of conditions in
Central America from Oliver North. Both have plenty to hide given
past transgressions. Any accusations by the FDHRS would be like
the pot calling the kettle black.  The Florida School for the
Deaf and Blind is moving ahead with efforts to solve their
problems. I would hope that your enmity toward NAC would not
prevent the opportunity for a representative of the Florida
School to respond to the allegations in the  Monitor  article. 
Remember...  Anything written to please the author is worthless. 
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Bob Kellogg
                                         Member Omaha Chapter NFB
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                   April 24, 1989

Mr. Robert C. Kellogg
4325 Bedford Avenue
Omaha, Nebraska  68111

Dear Mr. Kellogg:
This will reply to your recent undated letter postmarked April
10, 1989.  You send your letter on plain paper, not stationery,
and you sign yourself as a member of the Omaha Chapter of the
NFB.  Thus, you attempt to present yourself as a member of the
Federation, commenting in outrage at the injustice done to a
deserving and innocent institution in another state, the Florida
School for the Deaf and the Blind.  But the  Monitor  is thorough
in its research.  You neglected to tell me that you are an
assistant commissioner of education in Nebraska and that you are
in charge of the Nebraska Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the
counterparts of the Florida School.  It is not difficult to see
why your friendships and sympathies might cloud your judgment and
color your objectivity.  In fact, your own words are:   Robert
Dawson, the President of the Florida School for the Deaf and
Blind, is a close personal friend of more than twenty years. 
Name-calling on your part will not serve any useful purpose. We
carefully researched the facts about the Florida School, and I
believe they are absolutely true.  More than that, I think we
greatly understated the abuses at that institution, and I think
we can prove it.  You say that our article was not signed and
that it, therefore, presumably represents Federation policy.  Be
assured that it does.  What has happened at the Florida School
for the Deaf and the Blind is nauseatingly disgusting, and we
have no apologies to make for a single word we said.  We meant
it, every bit of it.  Moreover, if the facts warrant (and they
well may), we will write further articles about the Florida
School.  We are not dealing with a cozy little club of
superintendents and executives who can do as they please and
protect their precious reputations.  We are dealing with the
lives of children.  Let let me say these further things to you:
(1) NAC's function in our article is not causative but
symptomatic and symbolic. Think about it.  Perhaps you will see
what I mean.
(2) You plead as an excuse for the gross mismanagement and
negligence at the Florida School the lack of funds.  The facts
dispute your contention.  A $20,000,000 annual budget for a
single school is hardly parsimonious.
(3) Most people in the country from whom I have heard (including,
I might add, educators of the blind) do not agree with your views
about the Florida School.  The documentation is thorough, and we
interviewed both Mr. Dawson and Dr. Tinsley, the principal of the
Department for the Blind.
(4) Ordinarily I do not take exception to criticism of  Monitor 
articles, but in this case (particularly, considering the false
colors under which you attempted to sail) I do.  The blind are
determined to make changes in some of the agencies and schools
established to give them service, and they will not be swayed
from their course.
(5) You ended your letter with a questionable and rather
pointless quotation from Pascal (taking the trouble gratuitously
to supply me
with the dates of his birth and death).  Let me now return the
compliment:   There is no substitute for the truth.  Kenneth
Jernigan (1926 - present) My final comment to you is that I shall
probably print this correspondence in the  Monitor .  Let the
documentation and your words speak for themselves.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind

P. S. With further reference to truth and full disclosure:  I am
informed that although you have from time to time paid dues to
the National Federation of the Blind, you have simultaneously
paid dues to organizations with opposite philosophies, causing a
number of people to think that your motive was not true
membership but personal self-interest and an attempt to mislead.

                   MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT THE 
FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND
The National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind
and Visually Handicapped (NAC) and its supporters have tried to
respond to our recent revelations about the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind by saying that all of the wrongdoing has
been concentrated in the Department for the Deaf and that the
Department for the Blind is not involved. On the face of it this
does not make sense. New revelations underscore the shallowness
of the NAC argument. When seven percent of the staff of an
institution have criminal records, is it really conceivable that
one department is pure while the other is tainted?  Here is a
United Press International story which was widely printed in
Florida in April of this year:

                     School for Deaf, Blind 
Has Ex-Convicts on Staff

ST. AUGUSTINE (UPI) More than 7 percent of the current employees
at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind have criminal
records, according to a stories published in Sunday's editions of 
The Florida Times-Union .
 We saw enough reason to alert the school they needed to
fingerprint everybody,  Jerry Peters, a Florida Department of Law
Enforcement spokesman, said after background checks showed a
number of current and past employees had criminal records.
The background checks, which used only the employee's name, were
ordered after a mentally retarded 9-year-old girl was scalded to
death in a shower last October.
Peters said the names of 605 current employees and 380 previous
employees were checked through the FDLE's criminal information
system. He said a total of 101 charges had been filed against
current employees and 109 against past workers.
Among the charges faced by current workers are kidnapping,
burglary, assault, and possession of narcotics, the check
revealed.  Former employees who had worked at the facility in the
past four years had been charged with crimes ranging from
homicide to child abuse.  Peters said the FDLE survey is not
conclusive because background checks using only names often do
not show the disposition of the charges filed against the person.
The school has been fingerprinting prospective employees since
September, 1988, but has not fingerprinted current employees for
more extensive FDLE and FBI background checks.
Robert Dawson, the president of the school, said the increased
background checks were part of  a concerted effort in recent
years to tighten hiring and screening policies. 
The school's hiring practices first came under fire in 1987 when
several employees wee charged with crimes against children. Last 
year, dormitory supervisor Charles Johnston received a life
sentence after being convicted of sexual battery on a deaf
student.
School officials say they want the Legislature to pass a bill
this year that would allow them to run regular fingerprint and
background checks on current employees, a move officials from the
union representing some of the school's employees say they may
oppose.
State law does not bar the hiring of an employee who has an
arrest or conviction record unless the crime was a felony
directly related to the position for which the person is
applying.
  BLINDNESS AND THE USE OF PARTIAL VISION by Alfred P. Maneki,
Ph.D.
 As  Monitor  readers know, Al Maneki is one of the leaders of
the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. He is also the
new editor of  The Braille Spectator,  the newsletter of the NFB
of Maryland. In the Spring/Summer, 1989, edition he wrote a short
article based on his personal experience as a blind person with
some usable vision. His reflections are straightforward and
sensible. Here is what he has to say: 

Despite what some have said about the National Federation of the
Blind, we are not opposed to the desire of blind people to use
the vision they possess, assuming that they employ it effectively
and that they have acquired alternative techniques which they can
use when it is more efficient to do so. Braille, cane travel,
typing, and good listening habits are not inferior skills, and we
should be trained to use them when our sight is inadequate to do
the job at hand. The problems arise when the blind person who has
not been properly trained is forced to rely on clearly inadequate
partial vision rather than the alternative techniques of
blindness which are more efficient.
The educational system, when I was a child as well as today, 
always does what is easiest and will do more only when concerned
and informed parents insist on the most appropriate training for
their children.  I grew up before the development of modern
computer technology and before Public Law 94-142 and IEP's. At
that time most children, even the  partially sighted,  were sent
to the school for the deaf and blind. I know now that this was a
typically repressive school in many ways with extremely negative
attitudes about blindness. We were neither instructed nor
encouraged in cane travel. Shop classes, cooking classes, and
recreational activities were minimal. We were never challenged
intellectually. There was an emphasis on music, which did nothing
for my musical inabilities. I am sure that our teachers felt
sorry for us and did not think we would amount to much in our
lives.
And yet all children in the  blind department  were taught to
read Braille and to write it with slate and stylus. We were
admonished constantly:  Don't use your eyes! They'll go bad!  It
was easier back then for the system to teach Braille to all of
us. The school for the blind had to teach Braille anyway. Braille
books were available in relatively greater numbers than they are
today. All but a very few blind and visually impaired children
were sent to the school for the blind anyway. Why bother with
large print?
Today, the situation has been reversed. Braille is the bother. 
Why teach Braille if you don't have to and if the parents will
let you get away with not doing so?  I am convinced that if I
were a child growing up in Howard County, Maryland, today, tests
would show that I could read large print. Forget about reading
and writing efficiently!  These tests would be used to convince
my parents that I really didn't need Braille after all. Here
again, though it would never be acknowledged, the primary
consideration would be the convenience of the teachers and
administrators. Video technology makes enlargement of print much
cheaper than Braille, and teaching print reading is more
familiar, so never mind the eyestrain, the slowness, or the
relative lack of portability of the equipment.
Inevitably, children grow up and must conduct their lives with
whatever training or lack of training they have received. I was
very fortunate to have learned Braille in my childhood and
acquired other alternative techniques later. I was able to take
notes with slate and stylus in my college classes. I had
developed good listening habits and could use recorded materials
and readers effectively. I was able to prepare for graduate level
exams, write a Ph.D. dissertation in mathematics, teach college
mathematics, and find rewarding employment in government service,
none of which could I have pulled off if I had had only large
print at my command.
Here is my advice to parents and partially-sighted students.
Never let your school system off the hook. Demand alternative
techniques when they are not offered. Insist upon large print if
it would help.  Make the system work to your advantage by
requesting as many alternative techniques as are really useful
and efficient. Do not allow yourselves to be convinced by the
so-called  experts on blindness  that it is simply beyond the
capacity of the partially blind child to learn both Braille and
print. It isn't true. Most important, cultivate positive
attitudes about your child or yourself as a blind person, and
develop proficiency in the skills of blindness that will allow
competent performance.  How does one use partial vision, and when
is it useful? Every individual is best able to answer these
questions personally and should have the training and good sense
to know that relying entirely on vision when it is insufficient
is foolish. Here is a sample of instances when I find my eyesight
useful:
Writing on a blackboard. I learned delivering college lectures
that I could write on a blackboard even though I could not see
what I had written. Here earlier training with large print would
have been most helpful.
* Traveling without using a cane. Although I do not always
absolutely need to use a cane, there are times when it is
necessary.  Some years ago I stopped wasting time trying to
anticipate when I might need it. I decided to use it all the
time, and I now have one less thing to worry about. With
experience and competence with a cane one outgrows self-
consciousness about blindness.
* Identifying paper currency. Although I cannot do this rapidly,
it is a convenience when I am given change for a purchase.  *
Reading labels. This is useful for identifying canned goods, but
not much more.
* Reading large print on a computer terminal. This is moderately
useful when working with computer program code, which tends to be
concisely written.
* Distinguishing junk mail from bills and personal
correspondence.  This is helpful, but not essential.
* Looking at my Braille watch, rather than reading it with my
index finger.
The list could go on, but I think my point is clear.
My parents and teachers never really believed that Braille, the
white cane, using readers efficiently, and typing would enable me
to be successful in life. Nevertheless, I was taught these
skills; and although they were started later than was ideal, they
have helped me more than the limited sight that I have and use
some of the time.
I owe whatever understanding I have of myself and of blindness
largely to my involvement in the National Federation of the
Blind. Through its teachings and in its practices, the NFB has
given me a sense of well-being and completeness that I could not
have achieved alone.  The NFB is not a cult, as some misguidedly
and ignorantly claim. Instead, the NFB represents a powerful and
effective effort by the blind to correct the ills and injustices
of a frequently misguided society, and all are invited to join in
our quest for freedom.COUNCIL OF UNITED STATES DOG GUIDE SCHOOLS  HOLDS MEETING
 Almost without exception the dog guide schools in this country
have refused to have anything to do with the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC) and its so-called standards and quality
services. This does not mean, however, that the dog guide schools
are indifferent to standards of performance or good service.
Quite the contrary. It is precisely because they are concerned
about integrity and quality that they have rejected NAC. 
 In 1987 the dog guide schools formed an organization to discuss
common problems and consider ways to improve their service. The
following news release was issued April 13, 1989, to give details
about the most recent meeting and about the formation and plans
of the organization of dog guide schools. It reads as follows: 

There are ten guide dog schools in the United States, each
independently funded and operated. Located in the states of
Florida, Connecticut, New York, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and
California, each facility is a nonprofit organization that trains
guide dogs and provides instruction to qualified blind applicants
in the dog's use for mobility. There is no charge to the blind
recipient for the dog, harness, in- residence program, or after
care. The schools train approximately 1,400 guide dog teams a
year.
Recently the schools joined together to form The Council of U. S. 
Dog Guide Schools, a consolidation of the ten independent
facilities in the United States, and held its semi-annual meeting
at International Guiding Eyes in Los Angeles, California, on
March 16 and 17. The purpose of the council is to provide a forum
for the exchange and sharing of information about successful
operating practices employed by the ten member schools.
The concept of the council was initiated by Dr. Stuart Grout,
President of the Seeing Eye of Morristown, New Jersey. The first
formation meeting was held March, 1987. Dr. Grout explains,  The
long-term goal of the council is to develop a manual of standards
of good practice that will ultimately benefit the safety and
lives of the blind students who attend the schools. The council
was formed to act on behalf of all ten of the schools and
combines the issues of training and the needs of the profession.  
The selection of names for the council was somewhat problematic
in that several of the schools have already trademarked the term 
guide dog.  As a result, the council chose the term  dog guide, 
which describes the type of mobility being used rather than how
the dog is trained.
At the recent meeting held at International Guiding Eyes, the
council completed writing the by-laws and addressed topics
including: international certification, costs to train one guide
dog team, the need for instructors, veterinary programs, and
training methods.
As the requests for assistance from the blind community increase,
the schools continue to expand and gain more visibility not only
in their respective communities but also nationally. There has
been a need on behalf of the schools for some standardization.
Marty Yablonski, Executive Director of Guiding Eyes of Yorktown,
New York, and chairman of the council, states:  This committee of
guide dog schools has been formed to foster the exchange of
information and the sharing of skills and knowledge in the art
and science of guide dog instruction.  This can only benefit the
guide dog user and each guide dog school.  The next meeting will
be held in October at Pilot Dog in Columbus, Ohio. One of the
issues on the agenda will be safe mobility in traffic. 

             CITY DISCUSSES AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS 
WITH FEDERATION

As  Monitor  readers know, the National Federation of the Blind
has taken a clear stand on the question of audible traffic
signals they are dangerous, misleading, and unconstructive.
Communities all across the country, however, continue to raise
the question of installing them. Local chapters and state
affiliates, therefore, must constantly be alert in order to
combat such notions decisively.
In early March of 1989, Fred Marc of the Baltimore City
Department of Transportation contacted Mary Ellen Gabias,
President of the Baltimore chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind. He had a request to install an audible traffic signal
at the corner nearest to the Maryland Rehabilitation Center. What
was the Federation's position on such an idea? In a few
well-chosen words, Mrs. Gabias enlightened Mr. Marc, who found
her arguments persuasive. He asked her to commit her ideas to
paper and to send him any other supporting documents she had. At
this writing the decision about this particular signal has not
been made, but the materials Mrs. Gabias sent are clear and could
be adapted by any group fighting the same battle.  Here is what
Mrs. Gabias had to say:



                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                   March 15, 1989



Mr. Fred Marc
Baltimore City
Department of Transportation
Dear Mr. Marc:
I'm writing to thank you for contacting the Greater Baltimore
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind concerning the
installation of audible traffic signals at the entrance to the
Maryland Rehabilitation Center on Argonne Drive. We are happy to
provide you with information about the experiences blind people
across the country have had with these signals.
To put it simply, they don't work. The concept of audible traffic
signals would seem to have merit. After all, the reasoning goes,
sighted people can see the traffic signal. Since blind people
cannot, it is only reasonable to give them equivalent data.
The problem with this reasoning is that blind people already have
comparable data. By listening to the movement of automobiles, a
blind person can reliably determine whether it is safe to cross a
street.  If knowing the status of a traffic signal were
sufficient to make this determination, we would not teach our
children to look both ways before crossing; we would simply tell
them to watch the light.  Blind people need to  listen both ways 
before crossing a street. The presence of a noisy audible traffic
signal makes it harder to hear what the traffic is doing. This
means that a device intended to aid the blind actually increases
their risk during crossing.  Audible traffic signals present
other dangers. Blind people who learn to cross intersections with
such lights necessarily find it unnerving to cross without them.
Since most blind people come from areas where there are no
audible signals, the presence of one at the Maryland
Rehabilitation Center would not assist their ability to travel
generally.  They would be  safe  at the Maryland Rehabilitation
Center crossing, but they will be on their own, without audible
signals, throughout the rest of the city. In other words, if
audible traffic signals were really necessary, they should be
installed at every intersection.  On the other hand, if a blind
traveler can negotiate an intersection safely in his or her
community, what is the special problem at the Maryland
Rehabilitation Center?  There are certainly other intersections
with similar traffic patterns scattered throughout Baltimore. 
These practical arguments are important, but there are also
philosophical considerations which have as much bearing on the
issue. Most people fear blindness almost as much as they do
cancer. One of the most pervasive myths is that those who are
blind are unable to move safely and confidently through the world
as it is. Those who believe this often feel compelled to
reconstruct the world  to make it easier for the blind.  They do
this in the name of accessibility, but it is actually harmful. 
If an individual believes that becoming blind deprives him or her
of the ability to function competently, that person will never
learn to cope. A good rehabilitation program can help people
overcome these misconceptions. However, all of the positive talk
in the world can be undermined by the presence of an audible
traffic signal which screams,  You can't compete! 
The Maryland State Department of Highways did a study of audible
traffic signals in Frostburg two or three years ago. They
determined that there was no evidence to indicate that the
signals had any impact on blind pedestrians, only that the
residents of Frostburg liked them.  A copy of their letter to
Mrs. Sharon Maneki, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of Maryland, is enclosed. So is a copy of the resolution
passed by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland at its
1987 convention in Frostburg, Maryland.
Audible traffic signals don't work. They increase the danger for
blind pedestrians, and they create a false sense of security.
Blind people who depend on them do not learn to make effective
use of the sounds of traffic. For these reasons, I sincerely hope
that the Baltimore Department of Transportation rejects the
notion of installing an audible traffic signal at the Maryland
Rehabilitation Center.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                     Mary Ellen Gabias, President
                                        Greater Baltimore Chapter
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
                                            Glen Burnie, Maryland
                                                   August 3, 1988

Ms. Sharon Maneki, President
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
Columbia, Maryland

                                  Re:  Audible Pedestrian Signals
                                             U.S. 40A at Broadway
                                            U.S. 40A at Water St.
                                                  Allegany County

Dear Ms. Maneki:
This letter is the follow-up to my December 31, 1987
correspondence to you regarding the audible pedestrian signals
(a.p.s.) in Frostburg as well as the State Highway
Administration's policy regarding these signals.
As you are aware, Frostburg State University asked that we
conduct a demonstration of an a.p.s. at two downtown Frostburg
signalized intersections. It has been well- received by the
residents and they have requested that they remain.
Our follow-up study included a review of traffic operations at
these locations. Specifically, our concern was safety, the
qualitative element being accident data. Our analysis did not
show any indication of accidents occurring that could be
attributed to these audible pedestrian signals.  We also
conducted a literature search of past research, only to find out
that research is very limited. The general consensus of the past
research concludes that while these signals have been used
successfully, there is a certain mistrust on the part of blind
pedestrians of mechanical aids at traffic signal controlled
intersections.
Therefore, based on this research and the concerns expressed by
your Federation, we have decided against installing these devices
in Maryland in the future. With respect to the two locations in
Frostburg, we will continue to monitor these closely and, should
action need to be taken, will respond immediately.
We hope that we have addressed your concerns and we feel this
policy will best serve our citizens. It is always a pleasure
working with organizations such as yours and we look forward to
your input in the future. If we can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact us.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Thomas Hicks
Deputy Chief Engineer-Traffic
Maryland Department of Transportation
____________________
                National Federation of the Blind 
of Maryland
                        Resolution 87-04

WHEREAS, Many myths and misconceptions exist about the abilities
of blind persons to travel independently and safely; and WHEREAS,
these myths and misconceptions are held by both blind and sighted
persons; and
WHEREAS, one such misconception is that audible traffic signals
are helpful to blind persons, but in reality, such signals create
safety hazards worse than those they are meant to alleviate,
because (1) the sound of the signal may block the sound of
traffic approaching the intersection, which may be dangerous if
this traffic runs against the signal; (2) persons using audible
signals may become dependent on them and therefore become less
capable of crossing intersections with non-audible signals alone
when necessary; and (3) audible traffic signals foster the false
notion that blind persons require costly modifications to the
environment in order to participate in our society; and
WHEREAS, at the request of misguided blind individuals, the
Maryland State Highway Administration approved funds for the
installation of an audible traffic signal at the intersection of
Main and Water Streets in Frostburg; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is the
largest organization of blind consumers in Maryland, and
represents the mainstream of progressive thinking on blindness:
Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the
Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this fourth day of
October, 1987, in the City of Frostburg, Maryland, that this
organization oppose the further installation of audible traffic
signals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization strongly recommend
that the Maryland State Highway Administration deny all future
requests for funding the installation of audible traffic signals. 
                   ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 
MAY YET GO CUCKOO
 Dennis Polselli, Editor of the  Cassette Gazette,  the
newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Massachusetts, sends us the following story from the December 7,
1988, edition of the  Boston Globe . We who oppose audible
traffic signals don't usually think about the issue from the
point of view of the city fathers.  Here is a glimpse into the
troubles that can befall those who misguidedly try to assist the
blind without consulting us. The town planners would have done
better to ask blind consumers rather than the Massachusetts
Commission for the Blind, an outfit (not surprisingly) filled
with professionals, who think that shrieking sirens or squawking
cuckoos are a fitting accompaniment to what they apparently think
is the spectacle of a blind person's crossing the street. One is
tempted to suggest as the participants in this little adventure
never did that the enterprising thief might have been an
exasperated blind pedestrian. Here (as reported in the  Boston
Globe)  is what happened in Arlington, Massachusetts: 


                  Little Sound, Lots of Flurry
                        by Bella English

All the town wanted to do was help its blind residents cross the
busy intersection at Massachusetts Avenue and Lake Street. But
since Day One, the project has been plagued with problems.
First, selectmen agreed to put up  audible signals  bells which
would ring every time the walk signal went on, letting the blind
know when to cross the street.
 That intersection was identified as one of the most dangerous, 
recalled Town Counsel John Maher. Town officials contacted the
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind, and worked with it to
choose a device.  In September, bells were installed. They lasted
nine days. Nine long days, according to neighbors. The alarm-like
bells rang every two minutes for 15 seconds, from 6 a.m., when
the walk signals were turned on, until 11 p.m., when they were
turned off. They drove neighbors in the high density area crazy.
Teen-agers hung out at the intersection and pressed the buttons
just to create bedlam.
 I certainly support your efforts to aid the visually impaired, 
one woman wrote selectmen,  but you are endangering their hearing
as well.  The writer said she had not gotten  a full night's
sleep  since the bells were installed.
 A burglar alarm is hardly called for,  wrote another.  One man
wrote to say he was suffering from  sheer auditory pain.  One
distraught neighbor told The  Arlington Advocate  that he could 
hardly describe the horror.  The bells were so loud, he said, 
they will be etched on my brain forever.  And a woman wrote:  The
ring sounds like a store alarm (confirmed by a friend of mine who
heard it over my phone)... I do not mean to interfere with the
rights or comfort of blind people, but I would suggest that more
melodious sounds be investigated.  Exit bells. Enter cuckoos.
 The bells turned out not to be a good choice,  conceded Town
Counsel John Maher.  I think they were put up because someone
made a decision on a low level here that they'd get the cheapest
possible signal. 
Town officials then consulted with the Commission for the Blind,
which told them about two other options: a  peep peep  or a 
cuckoo  for the crossing.
The cuckoo lobby won out over the peep peeps though no one will
take credit for the cuckoo.  I'm sure they didn't vote `All in
favor of peep peeps say  aye ,'  Maher noted. John Carroll, the
director of police, is rumored to be the man behind the cuckoo.  
Actually, they both sounded pretty much the same,  Carroll said. 
The cuckoo was a very pleasant sound and we didn't get a single
complaint from neighbors.  For the record, Carroll refused to
imitate the cuckoo sound.
Stephen Conroy, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, said:  What
kind of bird it was was never an issue with us. I guess the
Commission for the Blind had recommended the bird sound not be
indigenous to the area so it wouldn't be confusing. 
Since the dictionary defines a cuckoo as  an Old World bird,  and
therefore not indigenous to Arlington, the town went ahead and
purchased two of the cuckoo devices at $350 apiece and installed
them in November. Arlington was proud. It was the first town in
the state to experiment with cuckoos. It would be a model.
 It was fun watching people look up in the sky, every time they
heard, `Cuckoo, cuckoo.' It was like we were being invaded by
cuckoos.  It was a great thing for the town to do,  said 
Advocate  editor Carol Beggy.
 It was working well,  agreed Conroy.  It was permitting the
blind the use of the community and the ability to make a living
instead of waiting at home for a check to arrive.  But on
Thanksgiving day or night, the cuckoos flew the coop. Or, as the
police blotter put it:  Larceny of bird noise.   They're gone,
but certainly not forgotten,  said Detective James Allen.  We
have searched and inquired and taken all the obligatory measures
to recover the cuckoos. 
Whoever took the cuckoos, which were 15 feet up on a traffic
pole, had to use a ladder or stand on a van or truck. The crime
is a felony.  Who would take the cuckoos?  Obviously, a clock
manufacturer,  quipped Allen.  Why is it other detectives get the
murders and mayhem and I get the cuckoos?  he mused.  But if
that's the worst thing that happens, we're in good shape. 
Said Carroll:  We absolutely don't suspect the neighbors. I think
this is someone who just did it for the novelty, but it's an
inconvenience to the blind. 
The case is under investigation. Meanwhile, selectmen are
considering purchasing new, improved cuckoos, ones that can't be
copped.TIME TO SWITCH PARTNERS AGAIN IN VIRGINIA by Barbara Pierce
The old Dominion has never been a congenial place for blind
people to live. In the old days Colonel Watt a tyrant if there
ever was one ran the state Commission for the Blind with an iron
hand.  In his view, blind people had no business becoming
parents, so he saw to it that they were sterilized. His regime
eventually ended, and after a period in which Doug McFarlin
(among others) ran the operation, Bill Coppage took over and held
sway (after a manner of speaking) for twenty-one long years. But
in April, 1986, the governor fired him. (See the July, 1986, 
Braille Monitor  article,  Bill Coppage Thrown Out in Virginia. )
Even though Coppage apparently had no inkling beforehand that the
state had finally had enough of him, it became clear with the
Virginia Auditor's report made public in early September of 1988
that he had managed to take insurance by feathering his nest
before his unceremonious departure. It seems that the Virginia
Department for the Visually Handicapped (VDVH), the successor to
the Virginia Commission for the Blind, had received bequests
totaling $300,000 some years before.  Spending such bequests in
the way the benefactors intended is always a complicated
business. State agencies may use their funds only to do certain,
carefully prescribed things. Coppage seems to have longed for
unfettered access to this bountiful source of cash by now it has
reached $1.4 million; so Coppage and the VDVH Board of Directors,
a policy-making body, conceived what they no doubt took to be a
bright idea. They would establish the Visually Handicapped of
Virginia Foundation (VHVF) and would bestow upon it a grant from
the bequest funds of $95,000 to be used for its own worthy
purposes, such as covering certain costs for the 1989 American
Council of the Blind national convention to be held in Richmond,
Virginia. By happy coincidence, the man named as President of the
Visually Handicapped of Virginia Foundation was none other than
Dr. Earl Dotson, the Charlottesville dentist who chaired the VDVH
Board at the time these arrangements were made. Even more
felicitously, who should be appointed Executive Director at a
salary of $4,800 a year, paid directly from VDVF funds, but Bill
Coppage.

In the meantime Governor Baliles appointed John McCann to replace
Coppage as VDVH Commissioner. McCann, who holds a degree from
Harvard Law School, did not, to say the least, make the hearts
the blind of Virginia leap for joy. At the time of his
appointment McCann was the President of the American Council of
the Blind's Virginia affiliate, and he was employed as the
Director of the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind
(ALL), the coalition of organizations formed by the American
Foundation for the Blind at the height of the NAC struggle in an
attempt to combat the effectiveness of the Federation.  McCann
was planning to marry soon, and he let it be known that he was
happy to jump ship to Virginia Department for the Visually
Handicapped with its significantly better salary. Prior to his
job with ALL, McCann had been employed for a time at the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as an attorney in
the Office of the General Counsel.  Sources suggest that he was
unable to keep up with the work assigned to him and that he
resigned from his government job to take the ALL position while
he could still get usable recommendations from HHS.

According to Eva Teig,  Virginia Secretary of Human Resources and
McCann's new boss, VDVH morale in 1986 was at a low ebb.
Recognizing this fact and admitting, also, that VDVH was
suffering from the effects of a number of problems, McCann
promised to clean house and conduct agency business
even-handedly, according to  Charlie Brown, President of the
National Federation of the Blind of Virginia. Brown says that
Teig asked the NFB to give McCann a chance, which the Federation
was happy to do. Anything, they told themselves, was better than
Coppage.

According to consumers of VDVH services, the twenty-one months of
the McCann administration (he resigned effective immediately on
March 31, 1989) were remarkable chiefly for indecisive
leadership, broken agreements, rising dissension, and continued
accreditation by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). Eva Teig, on
the other hand, maintains that morale among the senior VDVH staff
has improved markedly when compared with the final days of the
Coppage administration, as well it might. After all, McCann had
promised to clean house in 1986, but at the time of his
departure, almost all the same senior administrators were still
on the scene. Several had changed responsibilities, but (in true
government style) they had not lost their jobs.  The only two new
players were Judy Phillpot Divers, the daughter of the Speaker of
the Virginia House of Delegates, and Nell Carney, hired as
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner and now Acting
Commissioner.   Monitor  readers will recognize Carney's name
from the days when she and her husband Terry first played a
controversial part in the Washington affiliate of the NFB and
then, three years later, led members of the United Blind of
Washington back into the Federation.

At the time this article is being written (late May 1989) the
public announcement of her April 3 appointment as federal
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Commissioner has
been made, but Senate confirmation is still pending. This
distinguished appointment has taken most of those who know Carney
by surprise, but the fact that she is rumored to have close
connections with retired Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee may
provide some explanation.
Teig also points to the legislature's allocation of funds for a
badly-needed library for the blind and its increased funding of
VDVH programs over the past several years as an indication that
the department is on the move and heading in the right direction.
Others maintain that the presence of the daughter of the most
powerful member of the House of Delegates on the VDVH staff
provides a more plausible explanation for the legislative support
that VDVH has enjoyed recently.  Be all this as it may, John
McCann has certainly faced intractable problems in his agency,
some of which he has made worse. For example, the state vendors'
committee (called in Virginia the Vendors' Council) worked with
VDVH officials in 1987 to develop Standards of Operation to be
used in the Business Enterprise Program. These standards affected
a broad range of vending issues and, in the months following
their creation, were cited by program officials in disciplining
vendors, according to both vendors and senior VDVH staff. Because
money had not been available to purchase talking cash registers
for all vending locations and to train all operators in using
them, the new Standards stipulated that the cash register tapes,
where they existed at all, would remain in the facility as part
of the operator's records. The daily reports would be reviewed by
the supervisor.
Then in January, 1989, McCann announced that all cash register
tapes would in future be sent together with daily reports to
Richmond. When the vendors' committee pointed out that this was a
direct violation of the new Standards of Operation, McCann
replied that the Standards were not in effect since he had not
signed off on them and they would now have to be revised before
they could be used. Happily, the impasse seems to have been
resolved by McCann's precipitate departure from VDVH.
The NFB advised the Vendors' Council Chairman Joe Shankle against
agreeing to McCann's plan of reinstating the taskforce that
developed the original Standards of Operation as the body to
revise them. Shankle therefore took the stand that the whole
Vendors' Council would have to decide whether and which vendors
would take part in the revision process. That meeting took place
in May, and the Council has appointed participants for the new
taskforce.
In the meantime, Nell Carney wrote a firm memo to George Koger,
VDVH Deputy Commissioner for Enterprises, making it plain that
(in her view) VDVH had not handled the matter wisely. Without
acknowledging the NFB position in the matter, Carney articulated
our view and instructed her underlings to backpedal in their
confrontation with the vendors.  Here is her memo:

To: George A. Koger, Deputy Commissioner for Enterprises From:
Nell C. Carney, Acting Commissioner
Date: April 17, 1989
Re: Standards of Operation for the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors

At the request of members of the Vendors' Council, I have
reviewed all of the information available to me on the Standards
of Operation, which were developed and sent to vendors in 1987.
While the records are characterized by lack of information,
indecisiveness, and confusion, it is abundantly clear to me that
the vendors were led to believe that the Standards of Operation
were adopted in the form presented in 1987.
In a letter to Joe Shankle dated March 1, 1989, former
Commissioner John McCann indicates that the program is operating
under the old Standards of Operation until otherwise advised. To
me, this document signed by the Commissioner identified the
Standards of Operation as an official document of the Department
from date of issuance in 1987.  (Because of poor record-keeping,
an exact date of time of issuance is not available.) Mr. McCann's
letter to Mr. Shankle also indicates that he is re-establishing a
task force to review the Standards and rewrite them. In a letter
to Mr. McCann dated March 6, 1989, Mr. Shankle indicates that he
will take the matter to the Vendors' Council.  As Acting
Commissioner, I have officially approved the only set of
Standards of Operation available to me as of this date, April 17,
1989. I believe it would be appropriate to have a task force look
at revision of the Standards of Operation, but I agree with Mr.
Shankle that this matter should be brought before the Vendors'
Council since the Randolph-Sheppard regulations specifically
require that policies, procedures, and standards be developed
jointly with vendor representatives.  As Deputy Commissioner for
Enterprises, you should negotiate the establishment of a task
force for the purpose of revising the Standards of Operation with
representatives from the vendors and from the nominee agency
management.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
____________________
This is the Carney memo, and it was issued in a climate in which
vendors make a number of allegations reflecting their general
dissatisfaction with the way in which their program has been run.
Despite having a nominee agency, Business Opportunities for the
Blind (BOB), Koger works hard to insert VDVH into the day-to-day
operations of the vending program, according to vendors. When
VDVH found itself in 1988 with a substantial shortfall in federal
funding, it was the Business Enterprise Program that was first
tapped to make up the additional funding out of its budget. The
vendors take credit for beating back this threat to their
livelihood, but they say that the VDVH impulse was indicative of
agency attitudes toward Business Enterprises.
Vendors report that in the beginning, McCann seemed to give the
impression of discussing matters with them and frequently
responded positively to their concerns. Increasingly, however, he
turned for consultation away from consumers of services back to
his senior agency officials, and as he did so, VDVH programs
settled back into business as usual with blind people at the
bottom of the heap. Nell Carney, who assured the  Braille Monitor 
that in VDVH she had observed some of the finest and most
committed professionals she has ever seen, also admitted with
regret that VDVH personnel generally in all programs have for
the past decade, as far as she can tell, remained remarkably 
non-responsive to the populations they serve.  The vendors say
that Carney so
far has been fair and open- minded. They wish she were planning
to stay on for a while, but they are grateful for the respite and
redress she has provided this spring.
Not surprisingly, the sheltered workshops employing the blind in
Virginia have also experienced difficulties, compiling a
painfully familiar record of oppression against blind workers.
Shortly after McCann arrived, he shifted George Koger into the
position of Deputy Commissioner for Enterprises, which includes
ultimate authority for the vending and sheltered shop programs.
As one would expect, the workshops in Virginia have provided
anything but true shelter or real employment for the blind.
The situation is best summarized by Charlie Brown writing in the
January, 1988, edition of the NFB of Virginia's newsletter. Here
is what he said:

                     The Richmond Workshop 
                        Bad Management, 
 Quality Services,  and NAC 
 by Charlie Brown

Some time ago, Ed Peay, President of our Richmond Chapter, wrote
to George Koger, Deputy Commissioner of the Department for the
Visually Handicapped, and asked him thirty questions about the
Virginia Industries for the Blind facility located in Richmond.
Mr. Koger answered Ed's questions in a letter Ed received at the
end of November, 1987. We think many of you will be interested in
his responses to the questions.  According to Mr. Koger's letter,
there are 33 blind workers and two trainees employed in the
workshop. All of the blind workers are employed in direct labor
all of the supervisors and management personnel are sighted. Only
15 of the 35 blind workers receive the Federal minimum wage. All
of the sighted production workers, of course, must receive at
least the Federal minimum wage.
Mr. Koger also states that  the average annual earnings of a
production worker is [Mr. Koger's grammar, not ours] $6,676.80
per year.  Remember that this figure includes the relatively
higher earnings of the sighted production workers who must be
paid the minimum wage.  Mr. Koger goes on to say that  The
average for non-production workers is $11,264.26.  Again,
remember that all of these folk are sighted. One sometimes
wonders if VDVH is operating a sheltered shop for the sighted
rather than one for the blind.
There is the additional matter of layoffs. Mr. Koger informs us
that  The Industry has laid off blind employees on two (2)
occasions over the past three (3) years.... No sighted employees
were laid off during this time period.... The average duration of
a layoff for a blind employee would be about eight (8) weeks of
intermittent work.  In his cover letter Mr. Koger, to his credit,
concedes that  The Industry has not been managed well for a long
period of time. It will be a slow process to correct all of the
problems of the past.  In this regard, the last time the workshop
director was let go was in 1987.
Long-time Federationists know that we have been pointing out
problems in the workshop for years. Officials have promised us
that things would get better, but they have not.
During all of this time, anyone who picked up a VDVH brochure or
saw the agency letterhead found, proudly displayed, the NAC seal.
This symbol proclaimed that the agency and its workshop program
were  fully accredited   everything  was deemed to be OK. We, the
blind, were just troublemakers. The National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
(NAC), everyone was told, would assure that blind people would
receive  quality services.  Without NAC, who knew what might
happen to the VDVH programs?  Well, for one thing, people might
have paid attention to the problems that continue to exist in the
Richmond workshop a lot sooner if VDVH had not chosen to hide
behind the fictitious NAC assurance of quality.  But all that is
water over the dam. Yet what are we, the blind of Virginia, to
believe when in spite of everything, VDVH Commissioner McCann
tells us that he is  wedded to NAC ?
____________________
That is what Charlie Brown wrote in early 1988, and things have
not yet changed appreciably in the workshop program. The reforms
McCann pledged to bring about in VDVH clearly did not include
improving the lives of sheltered shop workers in Virginia. This
comes as no surprise to anyone who knows how little
NAC-accredited agencies usually care about the best interests of
the blind people they are charged with serving.
But in talking with the  Braille Monitor , Nell Carney pointed to
her work on behalf of the sheltered shop workers as the single
most important thing she had accomplished during her tenure at
VDVH.  She says that she organized a taskforce to set goals for
the next five years for the industries program. As part of this
group's work, they managed to discover a classification for these
workers which would lift them out of the sometimes decades-long
designation of temporary workers. As of July 1, 1989, the blind
sheltered shop workers will, Carney says, become state employees;
and they will all begin earning at least the minimum wage. They
will also, she says, receive medical insurance as a benefit.
When rumors of McCann's departure started circulating early in
1989, it began to look as if despite his being  wedded to NAC, 
there was going to be a divorce in the family. The NFB of
Virginia has worked long and hard to convince VDVH officials and
their boss, Eva Teig, that reaccrediting with NAC would be
irresponsible.  Signs began to appear in April that this effort
was bearing fruit.  Teig told the Associate Editor of the 
Braille Monitor  in an interview that Charlie Brown had been 
very helpful  on this issue, and that the agency  would be
looking closely at the matter.  According to sources within VDVH,
the agency has never taken its annual reports very seriously.
This blase attitude on the part of senior officials of one of
NAC's flagship agencies is astonishing and most instructive. It
confirms, if confirmation was ever necessary, the NFB's
contention that NAC member agencies do not strive for excellence. 
They do not even find it necessary to contrive the appearance.
NAC has now reached such a pass that virtually any cobbled-
together set of documents will satisfy the high-principled folks
who dish out NAC's accreditation.
In September of 1987, when Carney came on board as McCann's
assistant, she says that she pointed out that the self-study must
begin the following spring, since McCann had already made it
clear that VDVH would seek reaccreditation. She says that the
annual report, a document cranked out by the clerical staff,
using word processing to change the figures each year, was
submitted as usual that September, but McCann made no immediate
efforts to begin work on the self-study.  In March of 1988,
according to Carney, McCann assigned a member of the clerical
staff who was to retire the following June to do the self-study.
McCann may have been  wedded to NAC,  but he could not have had
much respect for his marital partner. As reverently described by
NAC officials, the self-study is the heart of the accreditation
process a deeply revealing exercise in self-examination and
exploration of problems and potential, conducted by the agency's
best and brightest.  Yet McCann assigned a single clerical worker
on her way out to do the entire job. Because she had no interest
in or commitment to the task, she ignored it. In September Carney
reports that she pointed out to McCann that with the self-study
not yet started and the October 31 deadline approaching, the
staff could not possibly complete the self-study in time. McCann
agreed, cranked out the annual report as usual, and requested a
one- year extension, which he of course received promptly.  In
the meantime, it should be kept in mind, NAC was reporting that
the Virginia agency was fully accredited.
As 1989 began there was increasing talk within the senior staff
about the notion that VDVH had outgrown NAC and that NAC was no
longer a force to be reckoned with, but according to our sources,
the truth was that the staff just did not want to bother to
undertake the self-study.  Carney admits that she was not eager
to take the lead in dropping NAC, but McCann was adamant that he
would not preside over VDVH's withdrawal. He was on his way out,
but his team was going to begin the self-study process or, at
least, was going to appear to do so.  He appointed Judy Divers to
head the team. She was not amused; in fact, she was desperate to
dump what one staffer characterized as the  paper white elephant.

Carney says that, as soon as McCann had departed, the senior
staff voted to recommend to the Board that VDVH not engage in the
self-study required for reaccreditation. According to Carney, in
Divers' eagerness to jettison the self-study idea, she described
the senior staff recommendation to board members as being for 
nonrenewal of accreditation.  Carney says that the board then
voted at its May 11 meeting to table the self-study until its
evaluation committee could study accreditation alternatives. The
committee has one year to report to the Board, a period extending
well beyond the December 31 accreditation deadline.

One does not have to wonder very hard to know what NAC is likely
to do.  Desperate for numbers and the appearance of continued
viability, NAC supporters are already saying that VDVH did not
really reject NAC accreditition.  It just decided that it needed
more time to do its self-study.  But what will NAC say on
November 1, 1989?  Will it say that the DVDH is accredited?  Will
it say it is not accredited?  Or, more likely, will it make a
speech and offer a lame explanation?  Confusion over what
actually happened and what was supposed to happen at that May 11,
1989, meeting there has certainly been, and Carney puts it all at
Divers' door. When Judy Divers called Seville Allen prior to the
VDVH Board's meeting, she explained, according to Allen, that the
NFB was going to like what would come out of the meeting
concerning NAC. VDVH was not going to go through the renewal
process this year. Instead, a committee would be appointed to
investigate accreditation alternatives and make a report to the
board.  Divers did not want the consumer groups to get involved
with forcing or fighting this decision. Seville Allen questioned
Divers. She reports that she said,  You mean that you want me
just to shut up and vote, and things will go the right way? 
Divers agreed that Allen had gotten it right. In reporting this
action to the  Braille Monitor  Charlie Brown commented that VDVH
had left open the option of deciding that NAC was the horse to
back, but with the self-study off the drawing boards for 1989,
the NAC accreditation was bound to lapse.  Word spread quickly of
the VDVH defection, and it had the effect that sighting vultures
circling always has (see the Michigan story in the July, 1989,
issue of the  Braille Monitor ). One can only speculate about the
impact of the news within the NAC establishment, but the effects
of it were soon apparent. Though no one admits to having been on
the receiving end of pressure from either NAC or the American
Foundation for the Blind, Judy Divers, whose job includes public
relations responsibilities, wrote a memo on May 18, 1989, which
is striking both for its existence at all and for the ways in
which it differs in tone and substance from her earlier
conversation with Seville Allen and with the recollections of
other meeting participants about the substance of the board
discussion.  Here is the text of the memo:

To: Constituent Organizations and Other Interested Parties From:
Judy P. Divers, VDVH Board Administrator Date: May 18, 1989
Subject: NAC Accreditation

As the Board Administrator for the Virginia Board for the
Visually Handicapped, it has come to my attention that a number
of concerns have been raised regarding action taken by the Board
on May 11, 1989, on our NAC accreditation.  I would like to take
this opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings concerning this
issue.
As many of you know this Agency has been involved in NAC for a
long time and it has served a very useful purpose for our Agency. 
In the years since we first sought NAC accreditation, a number of
internal and external controls have developed for our Agency. 
Among these are consumer advisory groups, our annual State audit,
a full-time Internal Auditor, a policy-making Board, and a
Strategic Management Plan.
We were scheduled to start our self-study for NAC in the Fall of
1988, but were unable to meet that deadline.  As a result, we
have requested an extension of the time requirement and been
granted that from NAC.  Because we are unable to do the
self-study due to limited staff resources, we brought the issue
before the Board at its last meeting.  The decision of the Board
was to table the NAC issue and put the issue of accreditation
into its Evaluation Committee.  The Committee will study the NAC
accreditation and any other means of accreditation available to
the Agency.  The request which went out on our Rehabnet
concerning Agencies with NAC accreditation was done at the
request of the Board in order to determine how many agencies have
done this type of accreditation.  If there are further questions
concerning this issue, please bring them to my attention.  We are
in the process of transcribing the Board minutes and they will be
mailed next week.  Interested parties can see the discussion that
ensued on this issue, the motion and subsequent action on the
same.
We did not drop our NAC accreditation.  That accreditation is
paid up and valid through December 1989.  We anticipate that the
Evaluation Committee will have studied this issue and made a
recommendation to the Board for action by the time our membership
expires.  I hope this clears up any misunderstandings concerning
this issue.  ____________________
This is what Divers says, but Carney says it simply won't happen. 
But let us return to matters that were preoccupying John McCann
in his final months at VDVH and keeping him, presumably, from
pursuing the NAC renewal as assiduously as his Affiliated
Leadership League colleagues would have liked. The financial
chickens from the Coppage administration were coming home to
roost, and they were causing McCann embarrassment.  The State
Auditor announced in early September, 1988, that VDVH had to
reclaim its $95,000 from the Visually Handicapped of Virginia
Foundation along with $18,000 in accumulated interest.  Remember
that the auditor is talking about a NAC-accredited agency, one
that has been accredited with all of the marks of approval for
many years.
There was a good bit of negative publicity associated with the
ruling.  Here is what the  Richmond News Leader  had to say on
September 9, 1988:

                 Transfer of Funds to Aid Blind 
Was Improper, State Auditor Says
                          by Bill Wizen

The transfer of $95,345 in state funds to a private foundation
set up to help Virginia's blind residents was improper, the state
auditor says, and the state should take back the money, plus
$18,000 in interest.  But the non-profit group, the Visually
Handicapped of Virginia Foundation, doesn't have $113,345 to pay
the state.
A just-released audit of the state Department for the Visually
Handicapped says former Commissioner for the Blind William T.
Coppage transferred $95,345 of department endowment funds to the
Richmond-based foundation in April 1986.
Coppage, who serves as the foundation's executive director, said
Wednesday the money transfer was proper and was approved by the
State Board for the Visually Handicapped. He also said the state
attorney general's office approved establishment of the
foundation.
Coppage, who now lives in Charlottesville, said the foundation
has only about $85,000.
After the foundation was set up, it worked closely with the state
board and the department in making grants that supported a number
of department activities, said Coppage and his successor at the
department, John A. McCann.
Meanwhile, Coppage, who is paid $4,800 a year by the foundation,
said he has raised several thousand dollars in private donations
to support foundation activities on behalf of the blind.
The audit report said Coppage transferred the money on the
recommendation of the state board. The board took part in setting
up the foundation in October 1985, the report said.
 What we were doing was to make sure proper use was made of the
funds,  said Foundation President Earl Dotson.
Dr. Dotson, a Richmond dentist, was chairman of the state board
at the time the foundation was established but no longer serves
on the board.
He said the foundation was patterned after private foundations
that have been set up to raise money on behalf of state-supported
colleges and universities.
Dr. Dotson said the idea of establishing a private foundation to
help the blind had been under consideration for several years. 
This was a protection measure to be sure that the (endowment)
funds were to be used for what they were intended,  he said.
The only vote against transferring the money was cast by a board
member who felt the money should be lent to the foundation and
not transferred to it outright, Coppage said.
Although Coppage said he believes the transfer was proper, State
Auditor Walter J. Kucharski's office said in its audit report
that the transfer was invalid.
 Subsequent reviews of this transaction have indicated that
neither the board nor the former commissioner had the legal
authority to authorize a transfer of funds to the foundation, 
the report said.  The report covered the Department for the
Visually Handicapped for fiscal year 1987, which ended on June 30
last year.
Kucharski said the $95,345 transfer first was spotted in the
department's fiscal 1986 audit. He said auditors assumed then
that the transfer was proper.
But during the 1987 review, auditors took a closer look at the
transfer and concluded that Coppage and the board had no
authority to turn the money over to the foundation, Kucharski
said.
McCann, who became head of the department in 1986 after Gov.
Gerald
L. Baliles decided not to reappoint Coppage, said he wrote the
foundation on Aug. 4 and requested that it return the money.
McCann said he has not received a reply.
Delman H. Eure, a Richmond lawyer and member of the foundation's
board of trustees, said Tuesday the trustees will meet soon and
take up the department's demand for payment of the money.
McCann said the foundation and the state board have worked well
together since he became head of the department.
He said such a foundation serves a useful function in raising
money and supporting programs for the blind. Private fund raising
is something his department cannot do, McCann said.
He acknowledged that return of the money would break the
foundation but he is following the state auditor's directive.
The 1987 audit also questioned expenditures of other departmental
endowment funds.
 The department, for the third year, continues to expend
endowment fund proceeds on items which are not permissible under
the restriction of various endowment funds,  the report said.
The report said improper endowment expenditures included money
for staff awards and board lunches.
The report also said the department should develop and implement
better policies for spending endowment funds.
McCann said the department has done so and added the proposed
policies have been submitted to Secretary of Health and Human
Resources Eva
S. Teig for approval.
The audit report recommended that if the department fails to
enforce policies governing its endowment funds, the governor will
transfer management of the endowment funds from the department to
the state treasurer.
In 1980, Gov. John N. Dalton authorized transfer of
administration of the endowment funds from the treasurer to the
department, McCann said Wednesday.
He said the department's endowment funds at one time totaled
about $300,000 but income from investments over the past several
years has caused the funds to grow to about $1.4 million.
He said plans call for spending about $75,000 annually in
endowment interest earnings for programs for the blind.
____________________
This is what the  Richmond News Leader  said in its September
9, 1988, edition and one is left to ask the often-repeated
questions:  Where was NAC while all of this was happening?  What
of the claims that NAC accreditation assures financial
accountability and that this is the way the public can know that
an agency is fiscally responsible?  Distressing as are the
discoveries of the State Auditor, almost more disturbing is the
inevitable conclusion that no one at VDVH or at the Foundation
perceives that anyone has done anything wrong. The story
reprinted here does not include a single quote from anyone
expressing shock, regret, or outrage at this bureaucratic effort
to pull a fast one on the people of Virginia. One of the
fundamental principles of ethical government is that funds to be
made available for absolutely discretionary use by an agency must
be raised completely outside that government. This principle,
almost universally  understood in administrative circles,
obviously has nothing to do with the  quality standards  that NAC
holds up for its member agencies.
John McCann wrote to the Visually Handicapped of Virginia
Foundation on August 4, 1988 to request that the funds be
returned because he was forced to do so. It must have been a
painful duty, among other reasons, because of the problems it
would cause the Old Dominion Council of the Blind and Visually
Handicapped, the Virginia affiliate of the American Council of
the Blind. Roy Ward, Chair of the Virginia group's Convention
Arrangements Committee and a long-time employee of the Virginia
agency, had asked the Visually Handicapped of Virginia Foundation
for funds to assist it in hosting the 1989 ACB convention in
Richmond.  The grant had not yet been made though it had been
approved.  The evaporation of all VHVF funds resulted in serious
problems for Mr. Ward. He wrote a letter to John McCann hoping
that Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped (observe
the coincidental similarity of names VDVH, VHVF) would help. The
letter is revealing on several counts. We have always known how
dependent the ACB is on volunteers, but Ward explains that the
committee must fill 2,500 four- and-a-half-hour shifts. Assuming
and it is a very large assumption that each volunteer is willing
to donate forty-five hours or ten shifts, it must recruit 250
volunteers (400 to 500 helpers is probably closer to the mark).
No wonder that the cost of feeding and thanking this crowd is
$3,000. Ward's estimate of 2,500 conventioneers is, as we know
from past ACB actual convention counts, another example (if one
wishes to state it charitably) of Council wishful thinking,
although if one were to add the volunteers to the attendees, the
ACB might break the thousand mark this year.
In any case, here is the letter:

                                               Richmond, Virginia
                                                  January 8, 1989

Mr. John McCann, Commissioner
Virginia Department for the 
Visually Handicapped
Richmond, Virginia

Dear Commissioner McCann:
As you are already aware, The American Council Of The Blind will
hold its 1989 Annual Convention in Richmond during the period of
July 1-8, with our State affiliate as the host organization. I am
writing to update you on plans for the Convention, and to explore
ways in which your Department might participate to the benefit of
all blind and visually impaired Virginians, as well as those
among the 2500 or more Conventioneers who will come to Richmond
from all parts of the United States.
For many years Virginia has been considered by experts from all
across the United States to have one of the most outstanding
total service programs provided by a State Agency for the blind
and visually impaired.  From your pool of service specialists,
supervisory and management staff, and State leaders who support
services to the blind and visually impaired, there is a rich pool
of talent upon which I feel certain the ACB program committee
will wish to call. I trust that their expertise will be made
available when called upon.
We urge the Department to set up exhibits during the Convention
to help acquaint Conventioneers with program and special
equipment and aids available to blind and visually impaired
persons. I shall be glad to supply you with costs and other
details relating to exhibits.  In order to minimize the problems
of Conventioneers moving about in unfamiliar surroundings among
the four Convention hotels, the Convention Center, the many
restaurants to be utilized, on tours and in other ways, we
anticipate the need for at least 2500 volunteer assignments
during the Convention. We hope that Department staff will be
encouraged to volunteer during evenings and weekends, and during
work hours according to whatever policy you establish for such
activities.
Obviously, the costs for conducting such a large and diversified
National Convention are heavy. We solicit any financial support
the Department might be willing and able to undertake, at least
in part. Some of the major expense items are the following:



Braille programs $4,500
Large print programs 7,000
Cassette tape programs 500
Volunteer expenses 3,000



The volunteer expenses are those related to recruiting and
training them, recognizing them for their services via an
appropriate certificate, and providing them with a rest area and
light refreshments during their four-and-a-half hour tours of
duty.
There is one additional expense item which I would like to bring
to your attention. You will recall that in July of 1987, when our
Old Dominion Council was submitting its successful bid for this
Convention, we asked for support from the Department to cover the
cost of general liability insurance required by the City of
Richmond, as well as maintenance costs for use of the Convention
Center for exhibits. At that time the Department saw fit not to
approve such an expense, but referred it to the Visually
Handicapped Of Virginia Foundation which did approve it. This
action was a vital factor in our success in bidding for the
Convention. Now we understand that the Foundation has been
required to return its resources to the State. This leaves our
organization in a difficult and embarrassing position, and we ask
that the Department reconsider its prior action in light of the
extenuating circumstances.  Finally, I am enclosing a copy of a
letter to be disseminated widely to potential supporters of our
undertaking. I trust that you will see fit to copy it and
distribute it to all Department staff, or permit us to do so.
We realize that we are asking much from the Department, but feel
that there is much at stake for all blind and visually impaired
Virginians.  While the Convention is sponsored and run by the
American Council of the Blind, it is open to and intended for all
persons who are visually impaired or involved in or interested in
their welfare.  Should you desire further information, I shall be
happy to meet with you, other members of your staff, the
Department Board of Directors, and other State officials as you
may desire.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Roy J. Ward
                                          Host Committee Chairman
          Old Dominion Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired
____________________
That is what Mr. Ward wrote in early January of 1989, but McCann
was not quick to answer. On February 12, Charlie Brown wrote to
the VDVH Commissioner asking for a copy of his answer to Roy
Ward. McCann then settled down to write his response to the ACB
request, sending a copy to Charlie Brown.  Here it is:



                                               Richmond, Virginia
                                                February 24, 1989



Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1989, in
reference to the upcoming national convention of the American
Council of the Blind to be held in Richmond, Virginia, during the
first week of July.  Specifically, your letter suggested several
ways in which this department could participate in this
convention.
Department staff will be available to make presentations and to
participate in panel discussions in their areas of expertise. As
your program is developed, please apprise me of those you want to
invite to the convention and the subject on which they are to
present. I feel it would be appropriate for the Department to
have an exhibit at the convention; however, as the scope of this
exhibit necessarily depends upon cost factors, I will need
additional information before making a commitment.
I understand that quite a large number of volunteers will be
needed to assist with this convention. I will of course make
Agency staff aware of this need.
Your letter also inquired about the possibility of financial
support for the convention. As you are aware, Department funds
have not been nor can they be appropriated for such activities.
The only fund source which could be used for such support is the
Department's endowment funds; however, all expenditures from
endowment funds have been suspended pending resolution of certain
questions respecting the management of these funds. Therefore, I
regret that this Department will not be able to provide any
financial assistance or support to the convention including the
$1,900 for general liability insurance and facility maintenance
costs. Of course, I will take every opportunity to bring your
needs to the attention of organizations and associations which
may be able to provide support.
Please keep me apprised of developments as plans evolve for the
1989 ACB national convention. If I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                     John A. McCann, Commissioner
                                     Virginia Department for the 
Visually Impaired
____________________
So there it is, a still-unfolding saga of devious behavior, murky
conduct, and mixed motives if there ever was one. The blind of
Virginia have maintained for years that theirs is not a good
state for a blind person to receive good training,
rehabilitation, or assistance. Colonel Watt set the tone and
chose the music, and there is still powerfully little evidence
that anyone has yet substantially altered it. But it's time to
switch partners again in Virginia. It looks as if the governor
will name another acting commissioner to replace Nell Carney when
she leaves for Washington, D.C., probably in July. It is likely
that a nationwide search will then be conducted for a permanent
Commissioner.

Meanwhile, accreditation alternatives are being studied. The
combination of consumer opposition and disenchanted inertia on
the part of the staff have resulted in what Charlie Brown
characterizes as a  uniquely Virginian method of extricating
itself from the toils of NAC backing out.  The one really bright
spot in the picture is Carney's assurance that finally, on July
1, sheltered shop workers will achieve status as state employees
with medical insurance and earnings above the minimum wage.
VDVH portrays itself as one of the premier service-delivery
agencies in the field, but recipients of its services have never
been taken in. It has grown complacent and lazy, according to
many in Virginia, both inside and outside the agency. The blind
across the nation applaud every twitch in the direction of reform
that is evident. Hard experience has taught us caution, however.
We can only hope that someone with some drive and vision will
accept Virginia's current invitation to dance.
                       BLIND: THEN AND NOW
                    by Catherine Horn Randall
 As   Monitor  readers know, Catherine Horn Randall is First Vice
President of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois. 
She also edits  The Month's News,  the newsletter of the NFB of
Illinois. This article first appeared in the February/March,
1989, edition of that publication. 

In February of 1979 I took the train to Chicago to learn to
function as a blind person at the Illinois Visually Handicapped
Institute (IVHI), the state training center for blind and newly
blind adults. I would not learn about and join the National
Federation of the Blind for another three long years. No one at
IVHI told me that the Federation had a Chicago chapter where I
could meet other blind people.  My confidence was at rock bottom.
I knew that to restore it I must learn to use Braille and the
white cane. But I also had my own built-in positive attitude and
philosophy that blindness was not going to change my life style
or destroy my zest for living.
I would need every bit of determination I had to face the months
to come. I now realize that an administrative and teaching staff
without a positive approach to blindness and deep-seated belief
in blind people cannot possibly teach the skills of blindness
well enough for their students to use them competitively in the
real world.
An atmosphere of hopelessness and eternal despair hit me as I
entered the lobby. Students were sitting aimlessly around with
nothing to do and nowhere to go.
In fact, until I had lived at IVHI for a while, I didn't know
that I could be a rebel when necessary. I battled with the
administrative staff to stop treating adults who happen to be
blind like three-year-olds.  We forced administrators to stop
wasting time in weekly general gripe sessions that we called  Hee
Haw,  at least for the semester I was there.
I was required to attend group therapy sessions that wasted my
time.  I told the psychologist that I would not be returning to
these meetings.  I was blind, not mentally ill.
Assignments were seldom given, so evenings and weekends were
long.  I worked on Braille and spent more time than is healthy
bar-hopping, trying to relieve the awful tension IVHI created
inside me.  We students talked late into the night about our
blindness and how we hoped to put the pieces of our lives
together when we went home.  We needed positive blind role-models
to emulate, and we didn't have them. If I could have met Chicago
Chapter members of the NFB, I would have had people to turn to
who were blind and were truly making it in the real world. With
friends as legitimate role models I would have demanded more of
IVHI and more of myself.
The six years I have spent as a Federationist have tremendously
changed and enhanced my life. I now have hundreds of blind
friends from all over the United States who serve as excellent
role models for me and for other people who happen to be blind.
My Federation work helps me to succeed as a city alderman today.
I serve as Jacksonville Theatre Guild President and as Vice
President of the MacMurray College Alumni Board. I have more
Federation and community work to do each day than I can possibly
accomplish, and I have never been happier in my life.  The
Federation gave me back my self-respect as a blind person, and
that is a gift beyond all measure.
                   MAINE CENTER FOR THE BLIND 
 RESENTS SEEING THE TRUTH IN PRINT
 From the Associate Editor:  The Maine Center for the Blind (MCB)
in Providence, Maine, purports to provide rehabilitation and
evaluation services for blind people. It also runs a sheltered
workshop, which employs twenty-four blind people, and a residence
for blind adults.  The general public throughout the state thinks
of the MCB staff as experts on blindness. The director for the
past thirty-five years has been Robert Crouse, a Maine
institution in his own right.
But the members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maine
have become used to listening to complaints about MCB from
dissatisfied blind clients. People request transcription of
materials into Braille and receive tapes. High school graduates
go to the MCB for evaluation and never emerge again, swallowed up
by the  we'll take care of you  mentality of the agency. But when
the  Providence Press Herald  printed an article in February,
1989, announcing that MCB
had just expanded its fine staff by hiring a new orientation and
mobility specialist, it was too much for Bob and Connie LeBlonde,
active members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maine.
For an entire year no one had been teaching cane travel at MCB,
and seeing the paper treat the overdue cessation of this shameful
deprivation of service as a cause for commendation drove the
LeBlondes to write a letter to the Editor.
Three days later (and one can only speculate about how much
activity
on the part of MCB staff went on during those three days), the 
Portland Press Herald  devoted an entire page to statements
disagreeing with the LeBlondes' letter. There were seven of
these, and wonder of wonders they all were written by MCB
employees or clients.
Pat Estes, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Maine, then wrote a letter responding to this avalanche. She
heard nothing from the paper, and her letter was not printed.
Calling to inquire what had happened, she was told that her
letter had been lost, so she sent another copy. Still nothing
appeared in the pages of the  Press Herald . She called again,
and this time she was told
that the paper had decided to do a story on the issue instead of
printing her letter.
When the reporter called Mrs. Estes for an interview, it seemed
clear that her mind was already made up. She believed that MCB
was a fine institution and that its staff were saintly, dedicated
professionals with the best interests of the blind at heart. The
reporter was shocked and displeased to learn after publication of
her story that Mrs. Estes still wished to have her letter to the
editor published despite the article. This story is being written
in late April, and Mrs. Estes
and the largely uninformed public of Maine are still waiting for
publication of her thoughtful letter.
What follows is a selection from the correspondence touched off
by the announcement that cane travel instruction is finally once
again available in the state of Maine. We have not reprinted all
of the MCB-produced letters from the March 4, 1989, edition of
the  Portland Press Herald , nor have we chosen to print the hate
mail that the LeBlondes have received. More letters have appeared
in the paper in the wake of the article written by Joanne Lannin
on April 2, all of which were supportive of the MCB and
illustrate how far Maine is from establishing a strong working
relationship between the blind and the agencies supposed to
assist them. But members of the NFB of Maine did not recognize
the names of the writers, so they may actually be from members of
the public.
Here is what the NFB of Maine and MCB had to say:

                         Blind Exploited
 (From the  Portland Press Herald   Voice of the People 
Letters Wednesday, March 1, 1989) 

We came across a column in the February  21, 1989, Business
Tuesday section of the  Press Herald  which compelled us to write
this letter. Over the months we have seen many articles in your
paper dealing with the Maine Center for the Blind. Usually, these
have stated what a wonderful place MCB is and how lucky the blind
of the state are to have access to such a facility.
But this column reported on some  new faces  in positions
of authority at the center. It should be made clear that none of
these people is blind. Across the country, we have met blind
people who are lawyers, psychologists, teachers, and heads of
state agencies for the blind. There are no parallels in this
state, however.
The only reason we can see for this discrepancy is that either
Maine is unique in the fact that no blind people in the state are
intelligent enough to hold such positions or that proper training
for the blind is not available. Clearly, the second of these must
be true, since we doubt that Maine's geographical location is the
only one in the country not producing competent blind persons.
Why are the blind workers at MCB paid less than minimum wage
while sighted employees are paid at a substantially higher rate?
Is this
one of the great opportunities that MCB extends to blind people
the right to get paid less than their sighted peers for the same
work?  Everyone who donates to this  worthy cause  should
scrutinize MCB closely so that they realize what their donations
are actually funding an organization with extremely poor
attitudes, which do more damage to blind people's self-esteem
than any physical handicap could ever do.

                                       Robert and Connie LeBlonde
                                                         Portland
____________________

               Blind Center Workers Not Exploited
 (From the  Portland Press Herald   Voice of the People 
Letters Saturday, March 4, 1989) 

Freedom of speech is an American right guaranteed by our
Constitution, but this letters column is apparently a place where
anyone can say anything about other people and even organizations
without substantiation or regard for the facts or truth.
A March 1 letter to the editor, and the sensational headline
selected by this newspaper, accuses the Maine Center for the
Blind of exploiting blind people. Nothing is further from the
truth.
The center hires staff who must first be qualified for the job
they are expected to perform. But blindness, in and of itself, is
not a qualification for employment. The center is indeed an equal
opportunity employer. The fact is that we employ on our staff
eight blind and visually impaired persons in professional or
support positions such as rehabilitation teachers, adjustment
counselors, and department supervisors.
These people were hired because they were qualified to do the job
as a result of their education, training, and experience. That
they are also blind may give them greater insight and compassion,
but they are professionals first.
The center operates an industries program to provide employment
and work experience training to blind persons. We employ 24 blind
persons
in this program who are paid wages based on their production
capabilities.  All of our wages meet or exceed Federal Department
of Labor regulations regarding handicapped employment.
Eighty-seven percent of these workers have a second or third
physical or mental disability in addition to their blindness.
Many of these workers, because of their multiple disabilities,
might not otherwise be employed. Others use this supervised work
setting to gain skills and experience before moving on to
competitive employment. Several of our production workers earn
far more than a minimum wage.
The center provides a wide variety of services to over 600 blind
and visually impaired persons statewide each year. We involve the
persons we serve on advisory committees to keep us tuned in to
the needs of blind persons and to help evaluate our services.
Our board of directors is composed of dedicated volunteers who
formulate policy and provide the leadership for the center's
service programs.  Eight members of our board are blind or
visually impaired. They also
have backgrounds in small business management, law, counseling,
education, and sales.
We invite the general public to visit the center and observe
firsthand the services we provide. We are open for visitors 8
a.m. to 4 p.m.  Monday through Friday. Come by, visit, and see
our services in action.  See fact, not fiction. See commitment
and service, not exploitation.

                                                 Robert J. Crouse
                                               Executive Director
                                       Maine Center For the Blind
                                                         Portland
____________________
This is what the MCB Director Robert Crouse says, and here is a
similar communication from one of his supervisory staff:
At the Maine Center for the Blind, our rate of pay is based on 
piece rate.  So what workers, blind or sighted, produce
determines what they are paid.
This is a sheltered workshop that gives a handicapped person a
chance to learn and grow, then move on if they choose.
I'm legally blind and slowly losing what vision I have. I was
hired
as a supervisor in the assembly packaging department and have 20
employees working for me. This job was not handed to me because
of my eyesight.  It's because I had the qualifications that were
required.
Also, continuing education is increasing my knowledge in working
with the type of employees I have. Each one of my employees is a
paid worker just like me. We don't expect things to be handed to
us. We work for what we get. I am not exploited.

                                                    Gene F. Stone
                                                       Supervisor

This letter by Mr. Stone, one of the supervisors at the Maine
Center
for the Blind, is understandable  straightforward and
self-serving.  But the next letter is more complex.  The pathos
(and the letter is certainly characterized by pathos) lies in the
fact that the writer obviously does not realize what he is
telling us, either about himself or about his exploiters at the
Maine Center for the Blind.  Here is a man who has a college
degree in secondary education in Spanish, English, and theater,
and what is he doing for a living?  Working as a stitcher in a
sheltered shop.  Moreover, he is grateful for this so-called
opportunity and clearly feels that the Maine Center for the Blind
is his benefactor.  But let the reader judge.  Here is his
letter:

I am legally blind and employed by the Maine Center for the
Blind.

There are many persons in both the social service community and
the private sector who are visually impaired, some receiving the
benefit of programs provided by MCB.
To imply that visually impaired persons do not have the
intelligence
to hold responsible positions within the agency or in the public
community is not only incorrect, but an insult to those of us who
have worked extremely hard to overcome our limitations and live
and function normally in spite of our  handicaps. 
I hold a degree in secondary education in Spanish, English, and
theater; an accounting clerk certificate, several years of
practical experience in theatrical costume design, and
construction, as well as many other skills.
To imply that I do not have the intelligence to hold a 
responsible  position is an insult. And there are several
visually impaired persons on the staff of MCB with equal or
better skills and qualifications than mine.
The hiring of new employees or staff is not based on whether the
person is visually impaired or not but on the possession of the
skills and education necessary to accomplish the tasks that the
position involves.  Every employee has the opportunity to apply
for any position that
is open within the center and if qualified may end up in the
position.  The center provides gainful employment for those who
may otherwise not be employable. By doing this, it raises
personal dignity and self esteem for those who might otherwise
maintain very low opinions not only of themselves but of society
in general.

                                                  R. Dale Johnson
                                                         Stitcher
                                                         Portland

The next letter has nothing of pathos about it but only the
old-line sheltered shop sanctimony, arrogance, self- interest,
and appeal to the public's lack of information:

Unfounded suppositions and assumptions reveal nothing but
mistrust and suspicion to the uninformed.
We on the staff and employees of the Maine Center for the Blind
do not have to defend our position. It appears we do have to
educate
the public. Our doors are always open to the general public, we
encourage participation, we are not here to give anything to any
person, handicapped or not. We do provide an opportunity to those
who wish a meaningful and fulfilling employment position.
Wages paid at MCB are not based on the minimum wage but on a
survey of related manufacturing positions statewide. Our
employees have the opportunity to earn wages exceeding this
statewide average. It all depends on their willingness and
ability.

                                                     Fred Barrett
                                Production Consultant and Quality
                                                  Control Manager
                                                         Portland

So says the Production Consultant and Quality Control Manager,
and
no response is needed.  His comments speak for themselves. 
Appropriately the final letter in this series is signed by ten
workshop employees.  Is their communication spontaneous?  Did
someone suggest that they write and also what they might say?  We
will never know, for their situation is such that coercion (at
least, in the usual sense of that word) was probably not needed. 
But here is the letter:

We, who are blind and visually impaired employees at the Maine
Center for the Blind, do not feel exploited and are proud to work
at the center.
Some of us have been employed here for years, while others are
newly hired. We put in a good day's work, we do the very best we
can, and we are paid according to our production level.
We have always been treated as adults and are afforded all the
benefits that sighted employees receive; we are expected to be
responsible for our actions and our work.
We have choices as to how and where we will work; we choose to
work at the center. Come by and see us in action.

                                 Erwin Coy and nine other signers
                                                         Portland
____________________

                Critics Contend Center for Blind 
Exploits Workers
                       Workshop Employees 
Insist Jobs Suit Them
                        by Joanne Lannin
 From the  Portland Press Herald,  Sunday, April 2 

Erwin Coy has been working at the Maine Center for the Blind's
sheltered workshop in Portland for the past four months. In that
time, he says, he has done several jobs and earned close to
minimum wage.   Sometimes the things I do aren't necessarily the
things I like, but that's part of the job,  says Coy.  I'm here
because I need extra money. It's as simple as that. 
But while the Maine Center for the Blind points with pride to
employees like Coy, the National Federation of the Blind of
Maine, a consumer group, says he and other workers at MCB's
sheltered workshop are being exploited.
Federation officials say the workshop, which is one of four
programs at MCB, is paying blind workers less than they deserve,
and they say the workshop is not training people to find jobs on
the outside.   It's a very custodial attitude. They aren't
putting blind people out in competitive jobs,  says Patricia
Estes, the federation's president.  Most people feel the blind
are being taken care of because we have a center. In reality, the
services are inadequate.  But center officials and some employees
at the workshop say the federation does not understand the
workshop's mission, its payment system, or the special needs of
its employees.
 Those people (the federation) think this is a black hole. That's
not true,  says Wes Riley, the workshop director.  Some of the
people who are here now have worked elsewhere. They want to be
here in a sheltered environment. 
The conflict over the sheltered workshop illustrates
philosophical differences between the National Federation of the
Blind and MCB over services for the blind.
The Maine Center for the Blind is a private, non-profit
organization
made up of four separate programs: the sheltered workshop, the
rehabilitation center, the residence center, and a community
service program.
The federation is a nationally based group whose goal is the
complete integration of the blind into society. Nationally, the
federation
is suing a sheltered workshop in Lubbock, Texas, for wage
violations.  It has also waged battles with sheltered workshops
in Chicago, Houston, Cincinnati, Arkansas, and North Carolina.
The federation, which has 300 members in Maine, and other civil
rights groups such as the Maine Association for Handicapped
Persons, believe sheltered workshops undermine their goals. They
say such sheltered shops perpetuate the notion that handicapped
people can't work side by side with  normal  people.
 We absolutely are opposed to sheltered workshops,  says Jeff
Toorish, executive director of MAHP.  We believe people should be
in the least restrictive environment. 
 People there really feel they are stuck,  says Connie LeBlonde,
vice president of the Maine Chapter of the federation.  They need
real employment opportunities. 
But MCB and state officials say the workshop's mission is not to
find employment opportunities for blind people outside the
center. They say the workshop is simply the most appropriate
setting for a minority of blind people who might not be employed
otherwise and that people are only referred to the sheltered
workshop when they cannot or do not wish to pursue any other
alternatives.
 The Maine Center for the Blind maintains a setting for a
specific individual who would find it difficult to be employed in
a more competitive setting,  says Harold Lewis, director of the
state's Division
of Eye Care in the Department of Human Services.  The vast
majority of our clients are never even considered for the
sheltered workshop.  Blind people tend to be trained on the job
directly. 
MCB's sheltered workshop employs 27 people full and part time.
Some employees are referred to the workshop by the state or by
the center's own rehabilitation center, or they may apply for
work on their own.  Employees fill ongoing governmental
contracts. Currently, they are assembling flyers' kit bags and
parachute helmet retention straps for the Army, neckerchiefs for
the Navy, and evidence bags for the FBI.
In addition, the shop has contracts with Bath Iron Works to make
3,500 knee pads for welders and 6,000 canvas tool bags each year.
Workers
also assemble pens for state workers and printed tote bags for
fund-raising and commercial ventures.
According to Riley, the workshop is run like any other business.
He says it is currently in the black and has not had to lay any
workers off for the past six months.
Robert Crouse, executive director of the center, says 21 of the
27 workers in the sheltered workshop have a second or third
disability besides their blindness. He and other center workers
say critics with the National Federation do not understand the
people they are working with nor the extent of their
disabilities.
 They are not sensitive to the needs of people who have other
disabilities,  says Ruth Miotek, the director of the center's
rehabilitation program.
 There are some people here who will never progress beyond the
sheltered workshop,  Riley adds.  And there are some that could
possibly move out, but they've made it clear to us they don't
want to. 
Mike Abbott may fit that second category. Abbott has worked at
MCB's sheltered shop for eight years. He says he has done  more
than 100 jobs  in that time and earned an average of $5 an hour. 
But while Abbott may be capable of working on the outside, he
says he has no desire to.
 I enjoy it here. I make pretty good money,  he says.  Places
like this give blind people the opportunity to work. 
As for pay at the shelter, Riley says it is based on a formula
that must conform to U.S. Department of Labor standards and is
accepted by the National Industries for the Blind, an agency that
doles out government contracts to sheltered workshops.
The piece rate formula is determined by taking the prevailing
hourly wage for a textile or assembly worker in southern Maine
and dividing that by the number of items a sighted worker can
produce in an hour.  The piece rate is established by putting
three sighted workers through time trials.
Thus, if the prevailing wage for assembling parachute retention
straps was $5 an hour, and the time trials showed that a
non-handicapped worker could assemble 50 in an hour, the piece
rate would be 10 cents per strap.
 All jobs out there have been time studied,  says Riley. He says
the Department of Labor evaluates their calculations
periodically.  Estes with the Federation says she has no
complaint with paying blind workers at the same rate as
non-handicapped people. But she says she has heard complaints
from workers at MCB that they have been moved from job to job so
they cannot develop the speed or experience needed to earn
minimum wage.
One worker, Virgil James, says he quit after four weeks at the
sheltered shop because he had only made a total of $35. A decade
earlier he says he had worked at the shelter and earned $60 in
two weeks.   It looked as though they were just trying to freeze
me out,  James said.  I don't like to stay idle, but I don't want
to work for nothing. 
Riley says James was a unique case involving severe personal
problems.  He and other workers interviewed say employees are
indeed moved from job to job, but only when one contract is
filled and another begins.   As far as I'm concerned, they didn't
do their homework, 
says Coy, who has done everything but fold neckerchiefs since he
started working four months ago.  If you're exploited, it means
something
is being done against your will. I have the option to leave if I
choose.  Yet Estes of the federation says many blind people would
not choose to remain at the workshop if MCB and the state worked
with private industry to create viable options for them.
 These people have a right to be here. But people I talk to say
they aren't given many options,  Estes says.  If you have
low expectations, you don't have to give out much in the way of
services.  We're asking people to take a look at the whole
philosophy of how  you care for blind people. 

This is what the  Portland Press Herald  said, in its April 2,
1989, article; and perhaps the most revealing part of the entire
piece
(in fact, the very heart of it) is this quotation from the blind
worker:    If you're exploited, it means something is being done
against your will.
I have the option to leave if I choose.   This is what he says
but how little he understands!  How little he realizes what has
been done to him!  Very often the most vicious and insidious
exploitation is not resented at all by its victims.  The pages of
history are filled with the story.  Does he really have the
option to leave?  Technically and legalistically yes. 
Realistically and practically, no.
He is a casualty of the system, a child of the culture which
created and then broke him praising the institution that
perpetuates the tyranny which keeps him in bondage.  If there was
ever irrefutable evidence that the sheltered shops exploit the
blind and must be reformed, it can be found in the words of these
victims, words which the system put into their mouths and taught
them to speak.
Here is Pat Estes' March 7, 1989, letter, which the newspaper has
so far refused to print:

                                                    March 7, 1989

Dear  Portland Press Herald, 
I am President of the National Federation of the Blind of Maine,
an organization  of  blind people working  for  ourselves.  We
have some serious concerns about the Maine Center for the Blind
(MCB) and the services to, and treatment of, blind workers there. 
Many prominent citizens contribute to MCB; therefore it is no
surprise to me that your paper would devote an entire page to
letters from
Mr. Crouse, director, and six others he solicited from blind and
blind-retarded workers (See  Portland Press Herald , Saturday,
March 4). We know that he approached some workers with letters
already written, but these people refused to sign. I presume,
therefore, that if I chose to solicit letters from our members in
such volume, that the  Portland Press Herald  would, in fairness
to the truth, print all such less than favorable opinions in
full. But I do not choose to work our members up in such a
manner.
Since Mr. Crouse assures everyone that he is seeking after
excellence in the facility that he runs, I'm sure he would agree
that MCB has not yet reached perfection. Therefore, there must be
areas in which improvements could be made, and he would be
willing to listen to constructive ideas on the matter. The
experience of the organized blind movement in Maine with Mr.
Crouse is, however, contrary to this. Having been invited to
speak to our state NFB convention in 1986 in Auburn, Mr.  Crouse
refused to take any more questions from the floor and left the
convention of blind people saying that he did not  have to answer
or explain  to us. I think that the line of questioning became
too direct concerning the hourly wage and the standard of living
for blind workers at the Center. Since that experience, Mr.
Crouse
has refused to speak at our meetings or even to reply to our
correspondence.  I am sure he feels justified in doing so; after
all, we ask the hard questions and consider it our right to do
so, and we do not feel it unreasonable to expect answers from
those who purport to serve us
and know our needs. We will continue to seek the facts about the
quality of life for blind people at MCB, and we invite all
interested parties to join us.
We have contact with blind people all over our state, and we are
aware that many of them will not seek rehabilitation services for
fear of being referred to the Maine Center for the Blind. This is
similar
to the situation that the mentally and emotionally ill have in
regard to the services and stories coming out of AMHI. It
concerns us that blind workers at MCB have been repeatedly 
advised  over the years not to attend our functions. The National
Federation of the
Blind is a consumer advocacy group, keeping our members and the
community informed about the rights of the blind under the law.
Nationally the NFB has helped the workers in many sheltered shops
to organize for collective action, as Mr. Crouse knows. The NFB
of Maine is concerned that excessive control is exercised by the
MCB staff in filtering information to the blind workers. It was
quite refreshing to hear that the general public is invited to
tour the Center anytime and without notice. In several of the
letters that you ran, the phrase  come and see us in action  was
used. The facts are that officers of our organization have been
refused complete tours of this facility.  We were limited by the
times we could have access and by what we could see. We were kept
firmly away from the workers.
Over the years we have heard many complaints about MCB that I'm
sure (based on the letters printed March 4) the staff there would
like to eliminate. For instance, Braille and cane travel can be
hard for a blind person being rehabilitated to get at MCB. One of
our members wanted to learn how to use the expensive computers
that were just sitting idle and was told that they weren't to be
used. Another was told where clients were allowed to cross the
street, while others are taken to the bank to have their Social
Security checks cashed before turning around and giving the
counselor all but $20.70, which is that resident's  allowance 
for one month. Another worker applied for a day off to attend a
funeral, only to be embarrassed while at the service by a call
from an MCB staff member wanting to check up on his/her
whereabouts. Workers are made to purchase their own white canes
despite the fact that several have been donated to the Center. A
great deal of money is funneled into the Maine Center for the
Blind from our state and federal government as well as from
private contributors. But when the toaster breaks down, the staff
takes a collection from the residents to get it replaced!
I could continue with tales of custodial attitudes at the Center,
which in truth do not promote independence and self- respect. 
The NFB of Maine also questions the numbers that Mr. Crouse uses. 
We do not count eight blind people on the MCB staff and would
like to see a list of the positions held by blind staff workers.
Also,
it is legal under Federal law (as Mr. Crouse knows) to pay blind
persons less than the minimum wage, provided that the worker's
production level warrants it. That is, a blind worker's
production level (how many pieces he or she assembles per hour)
must be based on a comparison with a fair rate, that is, a
sighted worker doing the same work. So, when a blind person is
moved to a new machine, his/her work will not
be comparable to that of an experienced sighted worker on such a
machine.  Also, it is not fair to move workers continually from
job to job just as they gain experience and speed and the better
hourly wages that go with them. We have had complaints of such
maneuvers at MCB and
of people earning as little as $17.00 for two weeks' work. Mr.
Crouse is right: the federal government buys such articles as
those made at MCB, but the method of figuring the hourly wage
must comply with the formula as prescribed by federal officials
or else it is illegal.  The fact remains that it is very
difficult to compute such figures since Mr. Crouse expects us
just to take his word that workers at MCB earn  well over  the
minimum wage. Mr. Crouse will not make public such information or
give it to his workers. He intimidates the blind employees,
preventing them from seeking out the National Federation of the
Blind of Maine for help or affiliation.
The organized blind movement of this state will continue to work
to upgrade the living standards for all blind people. Mr.
Crouse's letter required a response. I do not expect my letter to
be any better understood than Mr. and Mrs. LeBlonde's, which you
ran March 1. The LeBlondes were quoted out of context and grossly
misunderstood by the writers and, therefore, misrepresented in
the letters that you carried in
your March 4 issue. I have serious doubts whether or not the
LeBlondes' letter was read in full to the workers who wrote
letters; I know that it was not read to all blind workers. I
doubt seriously that this letter will be carried from worker to
worker as was the LeBlondes'.  It certainly will not be read in
its entirety. I have little hope that this letter will be
understood in the spirit in which it was written, that of seeking
after facts and truth and not being satisfied with
generalizations.
The officers of the NFB of Maine would love to tour the Maine
Center for the Blind and to work with Mr. Crouse for the good of
blind people.  We want blind people at the Center to be aware of
their rights and not afraid to claim them. We want contributors
to the Center to know what they are getting for their money. And
we hope that they and the legislators will also seek after the
facts and the truth. None of us should be made to keep our
questions simple for Mr. Crouse. I'm sure he and his staff must
be accountable to someone.
There is a lot of money involved in such work; the NFB of Maine
would like to insure that the blind get their fair share in a
non-prejudiced environment, one truly conducive to independence
and self-respect.  I want to thank this paper for the space they
have devoted to this issue.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                        Patricia Estes, President
                                National Federation of the Blind 
of Maine
                                 
J.O.B. CONTINUES TO CHANGE LIVES
 From the Editor:  One of the most successful efforts of the
National Federation of the Blind has been and is our Job
Opportunities for the Blind program, conducted in partnership
with the United States Department of Labor. During the past few
years almost 1,000 blind
persons have worked with us through JOB in finding competitive
employment.  One of these (Robert Tabor of Kansas) recently sent
us a letter which Federationists will want to read. He has given
his consent for us to use it, so here it is: 

                                                 Lawrence, Kansas
                                                   April 11, 1989

Dear Mrs. Gabias:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation two weeks ago, I am
pleased to inform you that I have located full-time employment as
a staff attorney with the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment. This is a full-time state service position, with all
appertinent salary, pension, and benefits. I will commence work
on April 18, and my starting salary is gratifyingly adequate and
certainly comparable to what other attorneys similarly situated
are receiving. You will find enclosed for your placement files a
confirmatory letter of offer from the State of Kansas.
My position duties entail full-time involvement with enforcement
of the Super Fund hazardous waste clean-up program, funded by the
U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although Super Fund has
been in existence since 1984, Kansas is still in the
developmental stage of the program. This involves the creation of
original work product, such as standard form contracts, notice
letters, injunctive relief orders, and other special pleadings.
I first became a registrant of JOB at the post-convention JOB
seminar at the 1985 convention of the National Federation of the
Blind in Louisville. I have also attended other JOB seminars at
the national and state levels.
Although I learned of my job through the Kansas Division of
Personnel Services, I feel certain I would not have obtained it
without the generous assistance of JOB.
First, the seminars enabled me to meet with and to hear from
successfully employed blind persons in a variety of professions
and occupations.  These meetings often occurred at critical times
when the  chips were down,  and when courage and
stick-to-it-iveness had bottomed out. Somehow, learning of others
who have accomplished the seemingly impossible task of finding
gainful employment in a professional field supplies one with the
needed courage to continue the job hunt for a bit longer.
The JOB monthly bulletins, together with the seminars, gave me
the foundation materials which enabled me to synthesize a package
which
I call  job search theory.  This includes, among other things,
network building and pre- advertising job-hunting techniques. I
personally utilized these techniques by offering my time as a
voluntary  intern  to a legislator during the 1989 session of the
Kansas State legislature.  This legislator was acquainted on
amicable business terms with the chief counsel at the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment,
the agency for which I will be working. I learned that this
representative made a recommendation on my behalf, based, I
believe, on he work I had done for him. I hope to share more
details concerning this method at future JOB seminars.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that JOB has
done much to dispel the mistaken notion that blindness should be
avoided
or skimmed over, as a topic of discussion. It must be dealt with
openly and honestly during the interview. Witness my second
interview, at which the need, or lack of need, for accommodations
consumed much of the discussion time.
Let me conclude by thanking the staff at JOB for all your
assistance and for a job well done throughout the years.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                  Robert L. Tabor

                          PROCLAMATION
 One way we can acquaint civic and social leaders, as well as
members of the general public, about the work of the NFB is by
having city and state officials issue appropriate proclamations.
This is happening all over the country. From time to time we
print one or another of these proclamations in the  Monitor,  not
only to show what is happening but also to provide model language
and to serve as a reminder of what the state affiliates and local
chapters should be doing on a continuing basis. 

                       Office of the Mayor
                  City of Wichita Falls, Texas
                          Proclamation

Whereas, the National Federation of the Blind serves as the
vehicle throughout the nation which works tirelessly to promote
the vocational, cultural, and social advancement of the blind,
and
Whereas, it is the goal of this organization to integrate the
blind into society on a basis of equality with the sighted, and
Whereas, the work of this organization in winning security,
equality, and opportunity for the blind in Texas and throughout
the nation is to be highly commended.
Now, Therefore, I, Perry Goolsby, Mayor, do declare the month of
March to be
                      National Federation 
of the Blind Month

in Wichita Falls, and do encourage all our citizens to welcome to
our city the members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Texas as they assemble for their 1989 Annual Convention.

                                             Perry Goolsby, MAYOR
                                 
AS THE TWIG IS BENT
From the Editor: When does a person become mature? At what age
does he or she become responsible for helping make the world
better, not only for himself or herself but also for others? More
to the point (at least, for purposes of this discussion) how old
must an individual be to become (in the active, full sense of the
word) a Federationist?  How about 13? What about 9?
The Associate Editor and I recently received a letter from two
students at the Ohio State School for the Blind, which helped me
answer the question. I found the letter both delightful and
heart-warming. I
also found it instructive, for it told me that our message and
philosophy are beginning to permeate every segment of the blind
population children, adults, and the elderly; the rich and the
poor; the educated and the illiterate. It renewed my faith in the
ability of people to act in their own enlightened self-interest
and to do it collectively. It underscored something which, at the
core of my being, I have never doubted that the future of the
National Federation of the Blind is going to be all right.
Even now the leaders of the fourth generation are developing and
reaching for maturity. They are learning their Federation
philosophy at an early age and living it on a daily basis. Read
the letter from the students at the Ohio State School for the
Blind, and you will see what I mean. Here it is:

                                                   Columbus, Ohio
                                                   April 20, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan and Mrs. Pierce:
Our names are Jason Ewell (age 9) and Mike Leiterman (age 13),
and
we wish to tell you about our coalition the student alliance
coalition (SAC) at the Ohio State School for the Blind. Our
committee grew out of a minor student concern, which was soon put
on the back burner for a major issue. Therefore, we are writing
to tell you about our efforts over the past year concerning
totally blind students being discriminated against as dining room
workers.
This policy is unjust because only students with high residual
vision have been allowed to hold these positions. Collectively we
decided to approach the administrator of residential services to
share this concern because she oversees the dining room staff
and, if persuaded, could use her authority to aid us.
We shared with her our belief that our school should be a
discriminatory-free environment, in which we could learn by
trying as many things as we wished to attempt. She appreciated
our honesty and position. Likewise, she thought that other
students should follow our example here at
the OSSB. Dorm council was started. Every two weeks we meet for
around
an hour or so to discuss issues which arise out of living in a
residential setting. The dietitian, who acts as immediate
supervisor over the dining room staff, came to one of our
meetings and agreed to help by restructuring the hiring policy
and developing a more efficient training program for all who wish
to apply. Weekends and daily after school have been designated as
periods for the training sessions.
At this time those interested seem to be satisfied with this new
procedure.

We feel glad that we were able to work together to end this
problem.  Even though this issue really only directly pertains to
the totally blind, we felt it necessary that those with residual
vision be active participants because what affects one of us,
affects us all.

                                                    Respectfully,
                                   Jason Ewell and Mike Leiterman
          SOME PHILOSOPHIZING ON ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES
                        by Jana Moynihan
 This article is taken from the January, 1988,  Blind Missourian, 
the publication of the National Federation of the Blind of
Missouri.  Jana Moynihan is a long-time, active Federationist
from  Missouri.  Her is what she has to say. 

When we talk about alternative techniques which enable blind
persons to function effectively and efficiently, we usually speak
in concrete
terms.  We speak about methods, skills, devices, or the latest
technology.  We discuss Braille, Optacons, taped or recorded
material, talking calculators, computers that communicate through
Braille or voice, white canes or guide dogs, Visualteks, etc.  I
believe that before we get to the concrete discussion of
alternative techniques, every blind person and every parent of a
blind child should give some thought to the philosophy applying
to our selection of alternative techniques when and how they
should be used, and which ones will be best for which blind
person.  We should also consider how they are presented to blind
children or newly blinded adults, and how their use is encouraged
and taught. Basically alternative techniques mean, to me, any
method, skill, device, or technology which allows me as a blind
person to perform a given activity or task effectively and
efficiently in the predominantly sighted world.  But there are
some alternative techniques which a blind person must develop
which are really not skills or knowledge or methods or devices. 
Actually it might be better to call these things associated
techniques because they are more mental than physical.  Besides
knowing all the necessary skills, a blind child or adult needs, I
believe, to develop creativity, flexibility, and a certain degree
of assertiveness to make the skills, methods, and tools he or she
acquires really work as alternative techniques.
Why flexibility?  The blind person should be familiar with a wide
range of methods, skills and equipment so that he or she can be
in
a position to know which ones will be best in a given situation. 
One reason is that all the options are not always readily
affordable and available to the blind person, the school, the
employer, or even the rehabilitation agency.  For example, I
would like a small portable computer with a voice output, which I
could use as a word processor to write up interviews with
witnesses in my job as an investigator
for a federal civil rights agency.  This device would cost about
$25,000.00.  Much as my supervisors would like to purchase this
equipment for me, due
to budget cutbacks it isn't practical right now.  Since I have a
reader who goes into the field with me and can write up the
interviews to be signed on the spot by the witnesses, the
equipment I want isn't crucial to my doing my job.  It would make
me more independent and would mean that my reader and I wouldn't
have to push so hard when
we are in the field, but my ability for detailed recall and
experience in working with a live reader allow me to do what is
required.  I once had a friend who was applying for a job in
telephone sales or collection.  He had been legally blind since
childhood that is, he had what the experts call  some usable
vision.  He lost most of this vision rapidly about the same time
he lost his job.  He did get some Braille training and review and
was probably competent enough for his own purposes when he began
his job search.  However,
he had been bitten by the technology bug.  He heard of the 
VersaBraille,  a device which converts Braille into print in
combination with a regular printer.  It costs several thousand
dollars.  He decided he just had to have this great piece of
equipment in order to do the kind of work he had in mind.  So
according to what he told a number of us, he always specified in
job interviews when employers wanted to know what special
equipment or assistance he might need... he said that he needed a 
VersaBraille.  Naturally he never seemed to be the candidate
chosen for the job.  It never seemed to occur to him that he
could have done those jobs adequately by Brailling information
from his phone contacts on a Braille writer and typing it up for
the information of any sighted persons who needed it.  While it
is true that Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act does
require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to
otherwise qualified handicapped persons, it was not reasonable
for this blind person to expect the type of small business
operations to which he was applying to provide an expensive piece
of equipment when he could do the work using much less expensive
equipment, standard office equipment, and basic Braille and
typing skills.  By not being flexible, he lost chances for
several jobs.
Why creativity?  The blind person needs to be able to analyze a
problem and determine which alternative techniques will best
solve it.  Sometimes this means developing new methods or
combining known skills or negotiating acceptance of doing things
in a different manner.  In college I had to take Art History.  It
was required.  At first I wondered how I was going to pass since
we were being shown a lot of pictures and slides of various works
of art and were supposed to note the techniques or advances for
which each artist or painting was important.  I decided that
since the lecturers and required texts didn't adequately describe
things so that I could clearly answer questions about the artists
and their works in the detail our instructor wanted, I would just
have to have read to me everything available on the individual
artists which time permitted.  I went to the book store and
library and lined up my readers.  At the end of the course, I had
the highest marks
not only for that particular class but for all students in art
history for that term.
Now for assertiveness!  I can imagine some people reading this
who
are inwardly cringing at the word.  To a lot of people it means
arrogance, rudeness and argumentiveness.  That isn't what I mean. 
I believe that every blind child should be worked with to develop
what my mother called  backbone,  the strength (as politely and
firmly as possible) to stand up for one's rights the strength to
believe
in one's ability and not give up.  I believe that the need to
sometimes be assertive should also be stressed to every blind
adult.  I know too many blind people, including myself at times,
who have backed away from something we really wanted to do
because people said it wasn't possible for a blind person to do
that. Showing self confidence and being able to indicate that one
has a plan in mind for handling the situation or doing the job
doesn't always eliminate the prejudice or open the doors, but it
goes a lot further than saying,  What's the use in trying....they
are probably right....I am blind so I probably can't do that. 
Who should use the alternative techniques available to the blind
such as Braille, cane travel, etc.?  I feel very strongly from
personal experience that all blind persons with vision of 20 over
200 or less or with a substantially limited field of vision
should receive at
least sufficient training in these skills so they can use them
adequately for their own purposes.  I know that it is common
practice nowadays among teachers of blind children with what the
professionals call  some usable  vision to stress reading print
with aids, such as the Visualtek, and supplemented by recorded
materials.  However,
the fact is that for most legally blind persons using sighted
techniques (however they may be enhanced and enlarged) is not as
efficient as reading in Braille.  Working with tapes and live
readers is also fine, but some things just can't be done easily
or independently that way.  I feel very fortunate that my parents
insisted and even fought for
my local school system to have me receive Braille instruction in
school and also insisted and persisted until I agreed to receive
instruction in the use of the white cane before going to college. 
Although several surgeries prior to my third birthday had given
me some of that usable vision during my school years and I could
read large print and some regular print materials with the help
of very thick reading glasses, I could never really read
efficiently or without strain.  Then, just after getting my first
job, I began losing the sight I had through glaucoma resulting
from scar tissue left from my surgeries.  Within
a short period had no useful reading vision left.  If I hadn't
learned Braille I would probably have had to quit that job as
behavioral therapist and teacher for developmentally handicapped
children. My job required that I keep detailed progress notes and
graphs on each child. I had to present both a written and an oral
summary of the progress of each child in each of several specific
areas at periodic staffings.  When I first started working I kept
all records in print form.  After about six months, with the
glaucoma, I could no longer do this. Because of the Braille
training my parents had insisted the school provide, I was able
to switch without any problem or break in employment.  My husband
and I know many blind people who had (or still have) some vision. 
On the whole, those who had even some Braille training as
children are doing much better than those who didn't get it. 
Those who didn't learn Braille often later have lost what vision
they had or have found that they simply could not rely on reading
print and keeping up with the demands of college or their jobs,
or effectively keep personal records.  The ones who hadn't been
given the chance to learn Braille as children also often had some
trouble learning it and using it later because many of them
seemed to have acquired the feeling that it was inferior to
reading print and that they were inferior because they had to use
it.
This brings me to my final point.  I believe it is most important
(especially, when teaching alternative techniques to children)
that we take care how we present these techniques.  Many of us
have heard teachers or parents say things like  Now, Mary has
some sight
so she can read print but John is totally blind. He has to read
Braille.   Some parents have gone so far as to say to children
things like  Now you're with us so you don't need to use that
cane. So put it away. 

Or they may say:  My son doesn't need Braille. He can see some. 
He isn't blind. 
Now children take all of this in.  They process it, and what they
come up with (regardless of anything else said to them) is that
being sighted is okay. Being a little sighted is inferior to
being sighted, but it's better than not having any sight that
being totally blind is the pits.  It also tells the child with
some usable vision that the closer the alternative techniques he
or she uses are to those used by the sighted, the better they
are.
These children (especially by the time they reach adolescence)
would rather do almost anything than use techniques that totally
blind kids use because they want to look sighted. They'd rather
risk being hit by a car or be considered a snob when they don't
respond to visual greetings from classmates in the hall or on the
street than they would carry a white cane.  They would rather
take poor grades or suffer
from headaches and hours of laborious print reading than open a
Braille book in front of their classmates.  It's hard enough for
blind children with some vision to resist doing this even when
they have been taught alternative techniques and these techniques
have been presented positively to them.
I know because I tried to act sighted for a while myself, even
though my family had always been very positive in their attitudes
toward my blindness and had insisted I read Braille. Once I got
my reading glasses (in about the seventh grade) and could read
some regular print, I started neglecting Braille, opting for
print every chance I got.
I didn't get a lot of my math problems right because they were
mis-copied.  It took fifteen minutes to read a page.  I got a lot
of headaches, and teachers passed over me for oral reading
because I read so slowly and disjointedly that even well-behaved
students were bored to the fidgets.  Never mind! I was reading
print from the same books as my friends used.  My mother got the
clue about the end of my eighth grade year what was going on
since I never read Braille any more. She tried explaining how
important it was.  I didn't listen, so that summer (before I
could do anything else) every morning I had to sit down and read
out loud to her from a Braille copy of the Bible which I had been
given a couple of years before. It sounded like the pioneers but
since I wouldn't order Braille books from the library it was all
she had handy.  I think it took about a month (somewhere in the
middle of Leviticus) before the message finally sank in that I
could read much faster in Braille and could also read orally as
well as anyone else.
I hope some of these thoughts about alternative techniques are of
assistance to other blind persons and to parents of blind
children
in helping them work with their children in a positive manner to
learn
and use effective and efficient techniques which can help them
successfully compete in school, on the job, and in daily life.
                    LITIGATION FILED AGAINST 
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES
 This article by Donald Capps appears in the May, 1989,  Palmetto
Blind,  the publication of the National Federation of the Blind
of South Carolina. 

It has only been in recent times that blind Americans have had
employment lucrative enough to enjoy what is commonly referred to
as  the better things of life.  Now that there are some blind
persons who do earn enough money to fit into that category, there
are those who would arbitrarily place limitations upon the blind
and even deny them the basic rights and protection afforded
others. Joe Urbanek of Walterboro, South Carolina, is one of
those blind Americans who has worked hard and is now in a
position to afford such things as cruises.
In late 1988 he was solicited by an agent of Carnival Cruise
Lines, Inc. He responded but was told that because of his
blindness he would have to sign a special release of liability
before he could board the cruise vessel. It is understood that
so-called nonhandicapped persons are not required to sign such
releases. Mr. Urbanek immediately recognized that the release and
its use by Carnival Cruise Lines was discriminatory against the
blind. As a matter of fact, he inquired
as to whether or not, in the event he signed the release, if he
sustained an injury actually caused by the negligence of a
Carnival Cruise Lines employee (such as hot coffee's being
spilled on him) would he be covered.

Carnival Cruise officials replied that the release would relieve
them of any liability for such an injury. Joe Urbanek regarded
this as pure nonsense. He contacted the NFB of South Carolina,
which in turn had its attorney to file a lawsuit in the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas, Columbia, SC. The litigation is
filed under the State's Bill of Rights for the Blind Act
sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind of South
Carolina and enacted into law by the 1972 General Assembly.
The general counsel for Carnival Cruise Lines has written to the
Federation's general counsel and uses some old arguments. In his
letter he attempts to characterize blindness as a medical
condition. He goes on to lump the blind with those having such
conditions as  arthritis, asthma and allergies, hernia, cancer,
colostomy, coronary disease, diabetes, kidney disease, mental
retardation, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, muscular
dystrophy, cerebral palsy, various neurological
and orthopedic related conditions, respiratory problems, thyroid
disease, and wheelchair-bound conditions.  Indicating that
Carnival Cruise Lines had obtained releases from persons with
these diseases and medical conditions, the general counsel
attempted to justify the requirement that Joe Urbanek execute
such a release. He went on to state:   We believe these figures
confirm our position that the Carnival policy guidelines
requiring certain passengers to sign a release is not based upon
whether the individual is considered to be `handicapped' (since
the condition may be temporary or not classified as a
disability), but whether, because of their medical condition, the
passenger presents a greater risk to themselves, other passengers
and/or to the Cruise Line by embarking on an ocean voyage. 
In an apparent effort to reach some out-of-court settlement, the
Carnival Cruise lawyer stated,  As per our policy, we review each
passenger's reported medical condition(s) on a case-by-case basis
and after conferring with the passenger, if necessary, his or her
physician, and our medical directory, determine what requirements
are necessary to accomplish these goals. If Mr. Urbanek has given
serious consideration to taking a Carnival Cruise and finds the
release objectionable, we would be pleased to discuss with him
his particular objections and how we can best accommodate him. 
The General Counsel for the NFB of SC responded to the Carnival
Cruise attorney as follows:  Thank you for your letter of April
10, 1989.  I have passed it along to my client for his review. In
the meantime, you should strictly observe the April 20 time for
answering in this case. Under our rules of court I am only able
to give you one thirty-day extension. Your letter raised at least
two points which should be addressed. First, after representing
blind persons and organizations for the blind for several years,
I can tell you that blind persons `vigorously resent being lumped
in a category with mentally retarded persons and persons with
loathsome diseases. Do you have any statistics which show a
greater incidence of accidents among blind persons at sea? The
second comment which needs addressing is your question as to
whether or not Mr. Urbanek `has given serious consideration to
taking a Carnival Cruise and finds the release objectionable....'
Obviously, Mr. Urbanek seriously considered taking a cruise and
was refused admission aboard ship unless he signed a release
which sighted persons are not required to sign. Just as
obviously, he finds the release objectionable or he would not
have filed this lawsuit. Finally, the lawsuit would not have been
necessary if your company had not
refused Mr. Urbanek admission aboard ship without signing the
objectionable release. If you are offering Mr. Urbanek the
opportunity to take a cruise without any conditions and if you
are willing to offer the same courtesy to other blind persons in
the future, then certainly we would like to talk with you. If the
purpose of your comment was simply to test Mr. Urbanek's will or
to talk him into signing a release, then you are wasting your
time. I am more than willing to discuss this matter with you at
any time. However, I am not convinced by your letter of April 10,
1989, that your company is not illegally discriminating against
blind persons. You must understand that every victory won by a
blind person in the United States was won after successfully
battling arguments such as you have advanced in your letter.
Blind persons have won the right to ride city buses, taxicabs,
airplanes, and cruise ships after convincing sighted people that
blind persons are not diseased or helpless simply because they
are blind. Neither does their blindness necessarily represent a
hazard to the safety of those around them. 
There you have it now we will await the inevitable trial of this
most important case.
               CONFLICTING UNPROFESSIONAL ADVICE 
ABOUT BRAILLE
 In New Hampshire the school officials told her that her son
should learn Braille. In California they told her he should not.
It is time to take the mystery and the hogwash out of this
question. 

                                              Edwards, California
                                                   April 12, 1989

Dear Mr. Jernigan:
I need some information and could not think of a better person to
write to than you. I have an eight-year-old son, Dennis, who has
been legally blind since birth. He was diagnosed as having optic
nerve hypoplasia and has a visual acuity of 20/600. He is now in
the second grade at a public school.
I am an avid reader of the  Braille Monitor  and have read
several articles that make me feel that maybe we are holding our
son back by not having Braille taught to him. He is able to read
large print and uses a viewer at school, but at home he never
reads because the print is too small or he has to struggle, so it
would take him all night to read a simple book.
When we moved here from New Hampshire four and a half years ago,
I called the blind association, and an itinerant instructor came
to talk with my husband and me. Immediately she said he would
read large print. We asked about Braille, because in New
Hampshire the itinerant said he should learn to read large print
and learn Braille. The itinerant here was very emphatic about the
large print. So after discussing it with each other, my husband
and I assumed she knew what she was talking about and agreed to
have him not learn Braille.
Now after reading the articles in the  Braille Monitor , we feel
we may have made a terrible mistake by not having our son taught
Braille.  If there is any information you could provide us on the
benefits or drawbacks of Braille, we would truly appreciate it.
We plan on having a meeting with the itinerant to discuss our
feelings, but due to her attitude towards teaching Dennis
Braille, we feel we need to self-educate ourselves on the issue
before speaking with her.
Our son is very independent and actually doing well in school.
But if there is any chance that we will be holding him back in
the future by not having him learn Braille now, we want to know.
Any information you can provide to help us with this difficult
decision would be of great importance to us. As of this time, we
feel if we were to request that Dennis be taught Braille, the
itinerant would
put up a hellish fight. But as long as we're his parents and
knowledgeable about what we are requesting, I feel they will have
to do what we request. Thank you for your help.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                                 
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                     May 10, 1989

Dear Mrs.   :
I have your letter of April 12, 1989, and I think you are wise to
be concerned about the fact that your son is not being taught
Braille.  Based on my experience with literally thousands of
blind people over the past forty years, I believe that both you
and your son will deeply regret it if your son does not become
proficient in Braille.
You tell me that you read the  Braille Monitor .  The June, 1989,
issue contains a great deal of material which speaks directly to
the
point.  Study and consider the words of Barbara Cheadle and Ruby
Ryles.  There are good reasons why many of the professionals in
the field oppose
the use of Braille, and most of the reasons are anything but
professional.  I don't know whether you are planning to be at the
NFB convention in Denver this summer, but it would be helpful to
you if you could be there.  Regardless of that, you might want to
talk with Barbara Cheadle about your concerns.  You can reach her
at the above address, or you can call her at: (301) 659-9314.
I am glad you wrote me, and I hope that what I have said will be
of help.  Since Braille is neither slow nor inefficient (I can
read it at close to 400 words per minute, and I know many others
who can do likewise), the reasons for the discouragement by the
professionals of the learning of Braille have to be something
other than the needs and well-being of the child.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                 USA TODAY  COVERS AIRLINE ISSUE
 USA Today  is one of the largest circulation newspapers in the
country, having several million readers. It has a practice of
inviting guest columnists to present opposing views on an issue.
The feature appears on the editorial page and is called 
Face-Off.  On
June 14, 1989,  Face-Off  spotlighted the airline issue. Speaking
for the National Federation of the Blind was the  Monitor 
Editor.  Speaking for the Air Transport Association was Robert
Aaronson. A picture and caption accompanied each column.
                           FACE-OFF: 
SEATING PASSENGERS 
NEAR EMERGENCY EXITS

    Stop Airlines' Bias Against the Blind by Kenneth Jernigan
                         Guest Columnist

 Kenneth Jernigan is the Executive Director of the National
Federation of the Blind. 
BALTIMORE - Today no blind person can board a plane without fear
of harassment and possible arrest and injury. The problem
involves attempts by airlines to impose special rules and travel
limitations on us.  Typical is the requirement that blind persons
not sit in exit rows.

If as airlines say we are a hazard in exit rows, it is not civil
rights but safety. If we can function as well as others in exit
rows, it is not safety but civil rights. Forget the mush about
compassion.  It is either safety or it isn't. Here is a pilot's
sworn statement:   I have been a pilot for many years. I
currently fly 727 aircraft, and I have been employed to do so
since 1974. I am familiar with a number of blind people, and I am
generally familiar with the capacities of the blind. In an
emergency there are circumstances in which it would be helpful to
have an able-bodied blind person seated in an emergency exit row
with a sighted person. In those cases in which there is smoke in
the cabin, an able-bodied blind person, being used to handling
situations without sight, would be able to assist with more
facility in the evacuation. An able-bodied blind person would not
hinder an emergency evacuation. 
In the early '80s, a member of the National Federation of the
Blind proved the theory. As his plane approached San Francisco,
the landing gear stuck. They landed on foam. The lights went out.
It was night.  There was near panic. It was the blind man who
found the exit and helped the sighted evacuate.
If safety is the issue, why serve liquor to exit row passengers
or allow carry-on luggage in exit rows? Sighted passengers with
hidden problems (heart, back, feet, emotions, removing 70-pound
exit row windows) sit unmolested in exit rows. But our argument
is not that others are unsafe, so let us be unsafe, too. It is
that we should not be held to a higher standard than others, that
no blind person has ever contributed to a problem in an airplane
emergency, and that in the name of safety we are suffering
massive daily abuse.
To another generation Martin Luther King was quibbling and
nit-picking, a troublemaking radical.

 Airlines Aren't Biased Against the Blind by Robert J. Aaronson
                         Guest Columnist

 Robert J. Aaronson is President of the Air Transport
Association.  WASHINGTON - Airlines' practice of not permitting
some passengers, including the blind, to sit in exit rows is not
unlawful discrimination.  It is common sense based on concern for
the safety of all passengers.  Airline policies in this area are
based on Federal Aviation Administration research and the
industry's experience with emergency evacuations.  The seating
location of young children and persons with disabilities is
important because of its potential effect on the evacuation
process and on total evacuation time.
Many tasks must be performed rapidly and accurately by an
individual in an exit row if an evacuation is to be fast and
successful: Locating and operating the door release mechanism and
determining whether the evacuation slide has deployed properly
and is safe to use. Assessing conditions outside the aircraft
such as the presence of fire or the pooling of fuel, the
condition of the wing and distance to the ground, and the ability
to select a safe route away from an aircraft.
FAA studies indicate someone who has difficulty opening an
emergency exit, determining conditions outside the exit or seeing
or hearing
flight attendants' instructions will likely impede an emergency
evacuation, imperiling themselves and others.
While there has been no recent study addressing this issue, there
is certainly no evidence to support the the proposition that
blind individuals will not impede an evacuation. An often-heard
comment is that blind persons are capable of reacting better than
sighted persons in a dark and smoky environment. But such
qualities are unique to each individual: While  some  blind
persons may react better than  some  sighted persons in  some 
parts of an emergency, there's no test by which such qualities
can be discerned by airline personnel boarding passengers.
Before Congress decides that blind persons should not be
prohibited from sitting in aircraft exit rows, it should
authorize a careful, scientific study. To do otherwise would be
arbitrarily putting the narrow interests of a vocal advocacy
group, one whose position is
not shared by other groups representing the blind, ahead of the
safety of all passengers and crew.
                         JIM WALKER DIES
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
It has been my painful task during the past few months to report
the deaths of a number of prominent Federationists, and there is
now another name to add to the list. The news came on Monday
morning, June 19.  The first account was totally lacking in
detail. It was simply the message that Jim Walker had died. The
news was all the more poignant because it was totally unexpected.
As soon as I received the message, I announced it on the public
address system here at the National Center for the Blind, and the
reaction was strong and immediate. There were expressions of
concern for the family and quiet discussions in the halls and
offices.
I thought of Barbara and wondered whether to call her to try to
give what comfort I could or to wait and not intrude. Very
shortly the question was settled. She called me, and we talked.
If you had to characterize Barbara in a single sentence, you
would probably say something like this: She is a person of quiet
strength and deep sincerity.  Those characteristics were evident
in our conversation.
She told me that Jim had had no prior illness or indication of
heart problems. Early that morning he had felt pains in his chest
and thought he should go to the hospital. They discussed whether
he should go
by ambulance or taxi, and he decided to use the taxi. He thought
Barbara should stay with the children (Marsha 8 and John 5), and
she did.  Jim collapsed in the cab on the way to the hospital and
died of a heart attack shortly afterward.
There is really not much one can say to make the situation better
at such times, but I did what I could. I told Barbara that we
loved her and that Jim would be missed. That was about all I knew
to say, and I hope it helped a little.
The funeral was held on Thursday, June 22, and John and Barbara
Cheadle, who were extremely close to the Walkers and had planned
to go to Yellowstone with them after the convention, went to
Nebraska for the service.  They represented not only themselves
but also the National Office
of the Federation. Fred Schroeder, a long-time friend of the
Walkers, was also present to represent the national body and
deliver a eulogy.  As I think of Jim Walker, certain
characteristics predominate to form the image. Above all, he had
integrity and loyalty. When integrity
and diplomacy clashed, he always chose integrity. When he had to
decide between loyalty and expediency, there was no question. It
was loyalty.  He made hard choices, and he lived with them,
usually without praise or recognition. On a personal level I
regarded him as a close friend and will miss him greatly.
                             RECIPES 
                          by Lori Duffy 
 From the Associate Editor:  The summer before my third birthday,
my parents took me on a day-long expedition to pick huckleberries
on a mountain in central Pennsylvania. My father has always
assured me that blueberries are merely a less sweet and much
larger domestic cousin of the huckleberry. I remember vividly the
fun of that trip, at least at the start. The pail my parents were
dropping their berries into came almost to my waist, but if I
bent over carefully and reached all the way down to the bottom, I
could just grab a handful of the fruit. Unfortunately, it
eventually occurred to my parents to wonder why they were not
making more progress in filling their bucket. I
was then unceremoniously handed a cup and told to pick my own
berries.  At that point the day became much less interesting. 
 I have always loved blueberries and in recent years have even
enjoyed picking them. This fruit lends itself nicely to washing
and freezing in a single layer on cookie sheets before being
packed away in bags for use all winter long in pies, coffeecakes,
and muffins.  Since I am busy these days with this very task, I
was delighted to receive Lori Duffy's set of blueberry recipes.
She is one of the leaders of the NFB of Ohio and is active in the
Parents of Blind Children Division. Her husband Eric was one of
the scholarship winners in 1987.  
                         BLUEBERRY SAUCE
 Ingredients 
2/3 cup sugar
2 tablespoons cornstarch
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup water
1 quart fresh or frozen blueberries
2 tablespoons lemon juice

 Method:  Combine dry ingredients in a large sauce pan. Add the
water and stir to dissolve the cornstarch. Add berries and cook,
stirring over moderate heat until sauce is clear and thickened.
Do not crush berries. When sauce is cooked, add the lemon juice.
Yield is three cups. This sauce can be used hot or cold. It is
wonderful on French toast, pancakes, plain cake, or ice cream. It
is a great way to use those berries that are going soft.

                       FRESH BLUEBERRY PIE
 Ingredients 
1 cup sugar
3 heaping tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/8 teaspoon salt
1 cup water
1 cup fresh or frozen blueberries
1 tablespoon lemon juice
3 cups fresh blueberries
1 cooked 8- or 9-inch pie shell

 Method:  Combine dry ingredients in a large sauce pan and stir
to mix well. Add the water and stir to dissolve the cornstarch.
Add one cup berries and cook, stirring constantly over moderate
heat until the sauce is thickened and clear. Add lemon juice, and
stir well to mix and cool slightly. Add three cups of fresh
berries. Gently transfer the filling to the prepared pie shell.
Chill thoroughly before serving.  This is simply the best
blueberry pie you have ever eaten.  
                  BLUEBERRY SOUR CREAM KUECHEN
 Ingredients 
2 cups flour
1/2 cup sugar
4 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 teaspoon salt
1 egg
1 cup milk
1/4 cup melted margarine or butter
3 cups fresh or frozen blueberries
5 tablespoons sugar
1 teaspoon cinnamon


 Topping 
1/2 cup sugar
2 tablespoons margarine or butter
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1 cup sour cream

 Method:  Mix flour, baking powder, salt, and sugar for kuechen. 
Add egg, milk, and 1/4 cup melted margarine. Stir well. Pour
mixture into greased 13x9 inch pan and spread. Arrange three cups
of berries evenly on the surface of the cake. Sprinkle with one
teaspoon cinnamon and five tablespoons sugar. Bake at 350 degrees
for 35 to 40 minutes.  Cool for ten minutes before drizzling the
topping over it. Store chilled.

 Topping:  Melt two tablespoons margarine and add 1/2 cup sugar. 
Stir over heat until the margarine is evenly spread through the
sugar.  Add 1/2 teaspoon cinnamon. Remove from heat. Gently add a
cup of sour cream and stir to mix well. This is delicious warm or
cold.  
                      BLUEBERRY QUICK BREAD
 Ingredients 
2-1/2 cups flour
3/4 cup sugar
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
6 tablespoons margarine or butter
2 eggs
1 cup milk
1 teaspoon vanilla
3/4 cup chopped nuts
1-1/2 cup fresh or frozen blueberries

 Method:  Mix dry ingredients together and cut in the margarine,
using pastry blender or two knives held scissors- fashion.
Combine together then add all at once the eggs, milk, and
vanilla. Stir until flour is just moistened. Mixture should be
lumpy. Add berries and nuts and mix gently. Pour batter into
greased and floured 9x5 inch loaf pan. Bake at 350 dgs. for one
hour and twenty minutes or until a toothpick inserted in center
comes out clean. Allow the loaf to cool a few minutes before
removing it from the pan. Makes one large loaf.

                        BLUEBERRY MUFFINS
 Ingredients 
1 cup whole wheat flour
1 cup white flour
1 cup or less sugar
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup milk
2 eggs
1/4 cup melted margarine
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1-1/2 to 2 cups fresh or frozen blueberries

 Method:  Mix dry ingredients. Add first the milk and then the
eggs and vanilla to the melted margarine. Toss the berries with 1
tablespoon flour and set aside. Add liquid to dry mixture and
toss just until flour is moistened. Add the berries and stir to
mix. Batter will not be smooth. Fill paper muffin-tin liners one
half to two thirds full of batter and bake at 425 degrees for
fifteen minutes, until browned or toothpick inserted in center
comes out clean. These muffins freeze well, if there are any left
over.

                        BLUEBERRY BUCKLE
 Ingredients 
3/4 cup sugar
1/2 cup margarine
1 egg
1/2 cup milk
2 cups flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cups fresh or frozen blueberries
 Topping :
1/2 cup sugar
1/3 cup flour
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 cup margarine
 Method:  Cream sugar and margarine together. Add egg and milk. 
Add dry ingredients, beating constantly. Fold in blueberries.
Pour into greased and floured pan and sprinkle on topping.  
Topping:  Mix sugar, flour, and cinnamon and cut in margarine,
using pastry blender or two knives scissors- fashion. Topping
should resemble coarse crumbs.
Bake at 375 degrees until toothpick inserted in center comes out
clean.  This is sometimes a little difficult to determine because
of the topping.  This batter can be baked in a 9x9 inch pan.
Doubled, it can be baked in a 13- by 9-inch pan usually a good
idea because this coffeecake disappears quickly. It can be baked
in a 9 inch spring-form pan to make a blueberry tea cake, or it
may be baked with or without the topping in muffin papers to make
individual muffins or coffeecakes.  The temperature for baking
remains constant, but the time varies, of course, from about
twenty minutes for the muffins to almost an hour for the doubled
version. Bon appetit.

                       MONITOR MINIATURES 

**Speech Plus:
Christopher Kuczynski, a 1985 NFB scholarship winner, is
completing his final semester at Temple University Law School in
the spring of 1989 (this is being written in May). As a part of
his last semester
at law school, Chris volunteered for a team participating in a
national competition in appellate court advocacy. The team wrote
a brief and argued orally, being graded on its team skill in
handling both tasks in a tournament at the University of
Minnesota Law School. Arguing a total of six times in less than
three days, Chris's team reached the finals, where it was pitted
against a team whose brief-writing score was higher. Victory for
Temple depended on a score in the orals high enough to cancel out
the opposing team's brief score. With Chris arguing one of the
two issues in final competition, the Temple team was victorious,
winning this year's national championship in moot
court advocacy. Congratulations to Chris and also to Temple for
recognizing the quality of this able blind advocate.

**Elected:
Hank LaBonne writes: Listed here are the officers of the
Chattanooga, Tennessee, Chapter of the NFB, elected in April of
1989: President, Hank LaBonne; First Vice President, June Grant;
Second Vice President, Reverend Morris Johnson; Secretary,
Carolyn Owensby; Treasurer, George Grant; and Board Members:
Patricia Coleman, Judy Carlton, Norman Bolton, and Bill Woodward.

**Dream-Weaver:
Dr. Charles Hallenbeck, one of the leaders of the NFB of Kansas,
writes
as follows:
This announcement from KANSYS, Inc., 1016 Ohio Street, Lawrence,
Kansas 66044: Products in the oven at KANSYS, Inc., include 
DREAM-WEAVER,  a system for managing your own personal dream
journal or notebook.  DREAM-WEAVER draws upon the professional as
well as the popular literature on the subject. It also draws upon
the experience of Professor Charles Hallenbeck, who taught  The
Psychology of Sleep and Dreaming  at the University of Kansas for
more than ten years. Write for more information, or call Dave at
913-843-0351 or Chuck or Cindy at 913-842- 4016.

**Gold Medal:
Federationists will remember that Dr. Dennis Wyant, Director of
Vocational Rehabilitation and Education Service at the Veterans
Administration, has spoken at more than one of our national
conventions. Recently we received a press release, which said in
part:

                         April 11, 1989
                    Wyant Sets World Record  
Wins Gold, Three Silver
Dr. Dennis Wyant, National Secretary of the Blinded American
Veterans Foundation, set a new world record recently in the
Second World Disabled Water Ski Competition held in Perth,
Australia. Dr. Wyant averaged
26.5 wake crossings per twenty seconds in the wake slalom event,
beating the old record held by Christopher Mairs of Great
Britain.
**Want Perkins Brailler:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  I would
like to secure a used Perkins Brailler. Please write or call
Renee
C. Donalvo, 2120 - 16th Street, N. W., Apartment 507, Washington,
D.C. 20009; (202) 667-4276. 

**TV Programs With Narratives:
We are informed that Jim Stovall has produced some programs for
television with narratives of action scenes. These videos are
available from the Companion Recording, Inc., 1722 East 57th
Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105. For more information contact Jim
Stovall at 918-742-6629.

**Dies:
 From the Editor:  I have just learned (this is being written
on June 12, 1989) of the death earlier today of Mae Davidow of
Pennsylvania.  During the sixties and most of the seventies Mae
was quite active in our movement, but in the late seventies she
became a casualty of internal strife in the state affiliate. She
served for a number of
years as president of the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania, and she was also elected to membership on the Board
of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind. She was
colorful, energetic, and determined in all that she did and she
played an important part in the expansion and growth of the NFB
of Pennsylvania. She was representative of an era, and it is
appropriate that we note with sadness her passing.

**Buy or Sell:
Barbara Mattson writes to say that she has set up a Used
Equipment Clearinghouse. If you have something to sell or want to
buy, you may register with the Used Equipment Clearinghouse at
134-A Hall Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302.

**It's Spring Year 'Round:
We recently received the following from Olivia Ostergaard from
the Fresno Chapter of the NFB of California: Here's the scoop on
our chapter:  On October 1, 1988, Olivia Tustison and Jim
Ostergaard were married in Bakersfield at the First Southern
Baptist Church, with about 450 guests present. The couple resides
in Fresno, California. On November 19, 1988, Janis Brady, chapter
president, and Lon Kafton were married at the home of Lee
Scholes, former first vice president, with about 150 guests
present. They live in Leemore, California. On February 14, 1989,
Mike Uribes and Tammy Frazer were married at the Medera
County Courthouse. They now live in Fresno. Olivia is the former
president of the Kern County Chapter and acting second vice
president until our April 8 elections. Mike was chapter treasurer
for eight years.

**On the Move:
The National Federation of the Blind has arranged with North
American Van Lines to offer substantial discounts to members of
the Federation who are moving. A discount of thirty-five percent
will be offered
to Federation members for moving charges, and a discount of
twenty-five percent will be offered for storage charges. There
are also credit plans available.
In order to get the discount or obtain further information you
should call Mr. Skip Carver at 1-800-873-2673. You must identify
yourself as a member of the NFB, and you should then ask for the
discounts in the National Federation of the Blind moving program.
North American Van Lines will make a contribution to the National
Federation of the Blind in the amount of two percent of the money
paid to North American Van Lines in the NFB moving program. Those
on the move should get these discounts. Not only does it help
with
the cost of relocation, but it also brings contributions to our
national treasury.

**Rehabilitation Funds Unused:
The Rehabilitation Services Administration reports that almost
$2,000,000 of Section 110 funds (the money used for providing
services to the disabled and support to state programs) was
returned unused to the federal government at the end of fiscal
1988. Over $2,000,000 was returned at the end of fiscal 1987.
Here is the breakdown of the 1988 money which was returned:
Illinois, $486,443; Michigan Blind, $354,681; Puerto Rico,
$268,228; Louisiana General, $204,818; Louisiana Blind, $192,595;
North Carolina Blind, $109,342; Guam, $64,164; New Mexico
General, $62,279; Ohio $20,378; Palau, $17,094; Marshall Islands,
$15,572; Total: $1,795,594. In Fiscal Year 1988 the Northern
Marianas did not use $212,519. However, this jurisdiction is
authorized to carry funds over from one Fiscal Year to the next,
and therefore, these monies are not considered to have  lapsed. 

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: For Sale: 
Dec-Talk, in excellent condition, $1,000. Please call: Frank
Bonfiglio, Archdiocesan Office for Persons with Disabilities, 305
Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226, (313) 237-5910.

**Out-of-Court Settlement in Evensen Death:   Monitor  readers
will remember that Richard Evensen, who was employed at the
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped, and his wife Lorraine were killed in January of 1987
while attempting to cross a road in Wheaton, Maryland. The April
17, 1989,  Montgomery  (Maryland)  Journal  reports as follows:  
A man who sued two motorists for $4 million after his blind
brother and sister-in-law were struck and killed by a car has
settled the suit out of court for $210,000.
 Robert Evensen of Reading, Mass., accused David C. Riddick of
Northwest Washington and Tyrone Williams of Gaithersburg
[Maryland] of negligence and wrongful death after his relatives
were killed in Wheaton Jan. 12, 1987. The suit was filed in
county Circuit Court in June 1987.
 Lorraine Evensen, 67, and Richard Evensen, 57, who were both
legally blind, died from multiple injuries after trying to cross
Georgia Avenue at Henderson Avenue with their guide dog,
according to court records. The couple had lived in the 2600
block of Henderson Ave.  for 14 years.
 In separate settlements reached Friday and Sunday, Williams
agreed to pay Evensen $170,000 and Riddick agreed to pay him
$40,000, court officials said.
 Williams' attorney, Thomas H. Talbott, stressed that the
settlement is not an admission of guilt, but was the best way to
end a case that he called shrouded in emotion. 

**The Heart of the Matter:
Steve Benson, President of the National Federation of the Blind
of
Illinois, writes:
Before a chapter is organized, prospective members must be
located, mailings done, telephone calls made, homes visited,
suitable meeting space found, transportation arranged, and many
other details given attention. After all the preparation has been
completed, one wonders how many will show up at the inaugural
meeting.
Early Saturday morning, April 1, 1989, my wife Peg and I drove to
Bourbonnais, Illinois, to participate in organizing a new
chapter.  As we walked into the Bourbonnais Municipal Center
Auditorium, we saw clear evidence of preparation and hard work
done by Bill and Ruth Isaacs. The room was nearly full of
prospective Federationists. The
NFB of Illinois Kankakee Heartland Chapter became a part of the
Federation family, with 41 charter members. A constitution was
adopted, a solid slate of officers was elected, and Federation
literature was distributed.  At least ten chapter members will
attend this year's national convention.  The officers are: Bill
Isaacs, President; Mary Malone, Vice President; Anita Clark,
Secretary; Ruth Isaacs, Treasurer; Bob Sowell and Dorothy
Oreford, members of the board of directors.

**Elected:
Robert Southard writes: On Saturday, April 15, 1989, the
Tidewater Chapter of the NFB of Virgiinia met. During the meeting
(in fact, the final item of business) was the election of
officers. They are as follows: President, Robert Southard; First
Vice President, Debbie Prost; Second Vice President, Harry
Vandevander; Secretary, Bill Parker; Treasurer, Willard Nichols;
and are two new board members: Stewart Prost and Leonard Watkins.
We look forward to a good and active year.

**Materials Center:
When ordering literature or appliances, many of you are
accustomed to calling the National Center in Baltimore and asking
for the aids and appliances department or this or that
individual. Because of the increasing activity in this area, we
have changed the name of the former Aids and Appliances
Department to the Materials Center, which more correctly tells
what it is. The Materials Center now has five staff members: Mrs.
Tormey (supervisor), Miss DeCicco, Mrs. Gastel, Mr. Conway, and
Mr. Smith. When ordering materials, please remember that it may
take us as much as five days to process an order. It then may
take anywhere from three to five days or longer for the post
office or UPS to get an order to you. So, realistically, plan
ahead when ordering, since it may take ten to fourteen days for
you to receive your order. Normally we will not charge you for
shipping costs, but if you ask us to send something by Federal
Express, next-day UPS, or some other special handling, we will
probably bill you for it.  After all, it is only fair that one
should pay for lack of planning or unusual costs. We have
catalogs available in Braille and print for both literature and
aids and appliances. Our address and phone are: National
Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21230; (301) 659- 9314.

**Dies:
We have been informed that on April 3, 1989, in New York City,
Mrs.  Lilian Swerdlow passed away. She was in her middle
seventies. With her husband, David Swerdlow, she was the
co-director of the Elbee Audio Players, a troupe of blind and
sighted Players. They brought
a variety of major dramas and musicals to the community for more
than twenty- four years.

**Of License and Law:
The following item appeared in the April 21, 1989,  Rocky
Mountain
News :
A Yuma County man who claims he's legally blind is fighting to
keep his social security benefits, which were challenged after he
obtained a Colorado driver's license last year.
Bobby Drumwright, a 46-year-old unemployed Laird resident, has
been receiving $229 a month in state aid to the blind for several
years.  Three eye examinations in 1988 and one in 1983 showed he
had no sight left in his left eye and 20/200 vision in his right
eye. To qualify for the benefits, the applicant's vision cannot
be better than 20/200 in his best eye. He also must live in a
low-income household.
On June 17, 1988, Drumwright was declared irreversibly blind by a
doctor.
 Miraculously, on June 30, 1988, 13 days later, Drumwright passed
a motor vehicle eye test with 20/40 vision,  assistant attorney
general David Temple wrote in court documents.
Temple is representing the Colorado Department of Social
Services, which is asking Denver District Judge Sandra Rothenberg
to revoke Drumwright's benefits. The judge is expected to rule on
the matter within weeks.
 The only logical conclusion here is that Drumwright is not
legally blind,  Temple said.  Passing the motor vehicle eye exam
is circumstantial evidence that Drumwright lied  when he applied
for social service benefits.
In early October the Yuma County Department of Social Services
cut off Drumwright's benefits after learning he passed the
color-blindness test, read 12 road signs and a standard letter
chart, and was issued a restrictive license, allowing him to
drive with a left rear view mirror on his vehicle.
On October 25 administrative law Judge Thomas Moeller reversed
social service's decision, saying Drumwright's eyesight had not
changed.  Drumwright will continue to receive his benefits until
the dispute is resolved.
Moeller agreed with Dan Kruger, a social services rehabilitation
counselor, that  it is very possible that you are considered to
be legally
blind and yet still can maintain your driving privileges in this
state.... 

*29 in Line*:
Don Capps, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
South Carolina, writes in the May, 1989, edition of  The Palmetto
Blind , the publication of the NFB of South Carolina, that on
March 7 the North Augusta chapter came into being. This brings to
twenty-nine
the number of chapters in the South Carolina affiliate. Eighteen
enthusiastic members attended the organizing banquet together
with a number of
NFB of South Carolina leaders present for the occasion. The new
officers of the North Augusta chapter are: Mrs. Essie Kaney,
President; Mrs.  Nellie Noakes, Vice President; Mr. Pat
Malhalland, Secretary; and Mr. John Parker, Treasurer.

*Honored:*
In the Spring, 1989, edition of  The Barricades,  newsletter
of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa, Peggy Pinder,
President of the NFB of Iowa, writes as follows:  Congratulations
to Mabel Nading, who was presented with the United Way of Central
Iowa's Senior Citizen Volunteer award for direct services. She
was nominated for this award because of her long hours of
volunteer work in proofreading textbooks for blind students and
for teaching Braille shorthand to
a young woman who was interested in seeking work which required
it. 
