                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR
Vol. 41, No. 9                                      October, 1998

                     Barbara Pierce, Editor


      Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by

              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland  21230
                   NFB Net BBS: (612) 696-1975
              Web Page address: http://www.nfb.org



           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



                            Contents

The Hunt for History
     by Barbara Pierce

You Wouldn't Kid us, Would You, Bob?
The Randolph-Sheppard Program Under Attack from Within

Young Braille Readers and Their Friends Take Note

Report from the Trenches
     by Marvin Sandler

Judge Spatt's Ruling in the Maxi-Aids Case

The Naked Truth about Benign Discrimination
     by Michael Baillif

Page Sets Sights on County Treasurer
     by Jason Gewirtz and Kristin Dizon

New Mexico School Update

Different Roads: The NFB Makes the Difference
     by Seville Allen

Taking Out the Garbage
     by Kathy McGillivray

Recipes

Monitor Miniatures

       Copyright (C) 1998 National Federation of the Blind



     [LEAD PHOTO #1/CAPTION: Terry Colli, Embassy Director of
Public Relations, chats with Helen Thomas, UPI White House Bureau
Chief. Lloyd and Mary Jernigan can be seen in the background.
     PHOTO #2/CAPTION: Ron Foster, a UPS Vice President, talks
with Dr. Jernigan.
     PHOTO #3/CAPTION: Deane Blazie spends a few minutes with Dr.
Jernigan.
     PHOTO #4 DESCRIPTION: Pictured here are the guests seated at
round tables. The elegance of the table appointments is quite
obvious. In the background a man can be seen speaking at the
podium. CAPTION: His Excellency, Ambassador Raymond Chretien,
addresses the luncheon guests.
     PHOTO #5/CAPTION: Left to right, Marc Maurer, Patricia
Maurer, Kenneth Jernigan, Mary Ellen Jernigan, Raymond Chretien,
and Euclid Herie.
     PHOTO #6/CAPTION: Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senator from Maryland;
Kenneth Jernigan; and Mary Ellen Jernigan.
     PHOTO #7/CAPTION: Euclid Herie, CNIB President and CEO; Tim
G. Sheeres, Chairman of the Winston Gordon Award Selection
Committee; Kenneth Jernigan, President Emeritus of the National
Federation of the Blind; and Raymond Chretien, Canadian
Ambassador to the United States.
     PHOTO #8/CAPTION: Mary Ellen Jernigan receives flowers from
Timothy Sheeres.
     PHOTO #9/CAPTION: Kenneth Jernigan responds to the award
presentation from the podium.
     PHOTO #10/CAPTION: Euclid Herie presents a plaque to
Ambassador Chretien in thanks for his hosting of the awards
luncheon. The Ambassador and Mr. Sheeres examine the plaque as
they listen to Dr. Herie speak.]
                           **********
     September 14 was a beautiful late summer day in Washington,
D.C. At 11:45 a.m. a stretch limousine pulled up in front of the
strikingly modern Canadian Embassy. Dr. and Mrs. Jernigan, Dr.
and Mrs. Maurer, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Jernigan, and Dr. Jernigan's
daughter Marie Cobb climbed out of the car and entered the
building.

     They and a number of other guests were then ushered to an
upstairs dining room. Following cocktails, Timothy Sheeres,
Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Directors of the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), Chairman of the Winston
Gordon Award Selection Committee, and master of ceremonies for
the day, welcomed everyone and introduced the head table. His
Excellency, Raymond Chretien, Canadian Ambassador to the United
States, was seated beside Dr. Jernigan. After Ambassador Chretien
had also welcomed the group, the rest of the guests introduced
themselves. Among the distinguished guests present were United
States Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland; Helen Thomas, White
House Bureau Chief, United Press International; Deane Blazie, the
first recipient of the Winston Gordon Award; Dr. Fred Schroeder,
Commissioner of the U.S. Rehabilitation Services Administration;
Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of the National Library Service for
the Blind and Physically Handicapped and one of those who
nominated Dr. Jernigan for the award; Dr. Susan Spungin, Vice
President for National Programs and Initiatives, American
Foundation for the Blind; Dr. Tuck Tinsley, President, American
Printing House for the Blind; and Ron Foster, Vice President for
Public Affairs, United Parcel Service.

     Mr. Sheeres presented the Winston Gordon Award to Dr.
Jernigan. Winston Gordon was a blind Canadian industrialist and
philanthropist with strong ties to the CNIB. His generous bequest
provided the means to establish the Winston Gordon Award, which
is presented annually to a person or organization that has made a
significant technological contribution to improve the lives of
blind people. Dr. Jernigan received the 1998 award for his
tireless work to establish NEWSLINE for the Blind(R).

     Dr. Jernigan made a brief but moving acceptance speech. The
Winston Gordon Award consists of a two-troy-ounce gold medallion
and $15,000. The medallion is one and a half inches in diameter
and reposes in a velvet-lined walnut slipcase. The text on the
obverse reads, "Winston Gordon Award"; on the reverse appear the
letters "CNIB" and the words "Canadian National Institute for the
Blind."

     Mr. Sheeres then presented Mrs. Jernigan with a beautiful
spray of autumn flowers, and Dr. Fred Schroeder read a
congratulatory letter from President Bill Clinton, which read:
                           **********
                                                  The White House
                                                 Washington, D.C.
                                               September 11, 1998
                           **********
Dear Dr. Jernigan:

     Congratulations on your selection by the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind as the 1998 recipient of the Winston
Gordon Award. I am proud to join your many friends and admirers
in celebrating this recognition of your unprecedented
accomplishments on behalf of blind people.

     Your life and work, which have become synonymous with the
National Federation of the Blind, have contributed enormously to
the efforts of blind people to achieve full inclusion in our
society. Because of your dedication, countless men and women are
better able to avoid the trap of isolation and dependence. And
opportunities for employment and social integration are greater
for the blind today than at any time in history.

     I am especially pleased that the Canadian National Institute
for the Blind has chosen to honor your exceptional achievements
in technology for the blind. The International Braille and
Technology Center you created has stimulated the development of
remarkable new technologies for blind people, and, as the founder
of an innovative news service and job search service, you have
empowered blind people with information and employment access
that could not have been imagined just a short time ago.

     Your work has been motivated by an unshakable commitment to
the idea that blind people deserve full access to all of our
society--from the schoolhouse to the workplace--and that they
have extraordinary contributions to make to our national life.
Many Americans have dreamed of equality, but those, like you, who
have helped turn those dreams into reality are true heroes worthy
of our deepest gratitude.

     Best wishes for a wonderful award ceremony.
                           **********
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton
                           **********
     As the final order of business on this happy day, Dr. Herie
presented a large tactile plaque to Ambassador Chretien. It was
the silhouette of a man walking and using a white cane. The
design is the logo of the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind. As a souvenir of the occasion, each guest was given a
lapel pin with the same design.
                           **********
                      The Hunt for History
                        by Barbara Pierce
                           **********
     For some time now the National Federation of the Blind has
been building the most complete collection possible on the
subject of blindness. For years we have routinely gathered every
book, recording, or video with any connection to blindness that
we could find. Long or short, constructive or unconstructive,
well done or badly done: we want a copy.

     We are always happy to receive material from anyone for this
collection. For example, Mrs. tenBroek recently sent us all of
Dr. tenBroek's papers. Anyone interested in finding an
appropriate repository for a collection of blindness-connected
materials of any size should contact President Maurer to discuss
whether or not the National Center for the Blind is the right
facility to house them.

     As part of this project, in recent months we have begun
transferring our open-reel tape collection of conventions and
speeches to CD's for permanent storage. In doing so, we have
discovered gaps in our collection which are significant enough
for us to pay $100 a reel for these specific missing materials.
We are eager to find copies of the open-reel tapes that appear on
the following list. Anyone possessing any of the tapes and
interested in selling them should contact President Maurer
personally. Anonymity is guaranteed. Dr. Maurer will confirm that
the tape is one that we are looking for and make arrangements for
its purchase and safe transfer. Contact Marc Maurer, 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, (410) 659-9314.

     Here is the list of tapes we are looking for:
1. All of the 1953 Convention, 8 to 10 reels.
2. The presentation by Dr. Newel Perry on the education of blind
children at the 1954 convention in Louisville, probably 1 reel.
3. The 1958 convention in Boston, about 10 reels.
4. The 1959 convention in Santa Fe, about 10 reels.
5. Reels 3 to 10 of the 1960 convention in Miami.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Marc Maurer]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: James Gashel]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Richard Davis]
              You Wouldn't Kid Us, Would You, Bob?
                  The Randolph-Sheppard Program
                    Under Attack from Within
                           **********
     From the Editor: People with experience in the blindness
field recognize the Randolph-Sheppard vending program as the
backbone of employment opportunities for blind people. Hundreds
of fields provide possible jobs for us, but for down-to-earth
reliability of making a living, blind people count on food-
service jobs.

     Given the centrality of the Randolph-Sheppard program in the
employment picture over the past sixty and more years, the recent
attacks on it by the Department of Defense (see the Presidential
Report in the August/September, 1998, issue of the Braille
Monitor for details) have understandably caused deep misgivings
to us all, particularly vendors. But when, on top of all the
other threats to the program, we suddenly learned this summer
that a small group of men had put together a plan that would
entirely transform the Randolph-Sheppard program as it has
evolved, without ever consulting the people affected,
Federationists were understandably angry and worried.

     It was mid-August before we learned what was happening, but
then the documents began to fly. In keeping with the Monitor's
policy of providing original documents so that readers can draw
their own conclusions, the following article is comprised chiefly
of a number of source documents. As you read them, be sure to
note the dates on which they were each written or released. Also
note the ways in which the proposed plan changes as it hits the
opposition of blind people. Readers should be warned that this is
not pleasant reading, and the story is far from over. Whether you
are a vendor or not, this situation is important to you, for in
many ways the Randolph-Sheppard program is and will continue to
be the most important single source of jobs for blind people in
the foreseeable future. If you care about the financial future of
the blind community, read on. We begin with an introduction to
the documents by President Maurer. Here it is:
                           **********
     The Randolph-Sheppard Act, which was adopted by Congress in
1936, authorizes blind vendors to operate vending facilities on
federal property. A central part of the program is "the
priority," which gives blind vendors the right to be licensed
"for an indefinite period."

     The Randolph-Sheppard program is one of the most successful
employment initiatives for the blind ever devised. Some vending
facilities are small, but others generate hundreds of thousands
of dollars in revenue each year. The most recent records of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, the federal agency that
supervises the program, indicate that over 3,000 blind vendors,
with an average annual income of about $28,000, currently
participate in it. Some vendors earn substantially more,
sometimes well over $100,000 a year.

     Although the number of vendors participating in the program
has not increased in recent years, their average income has.
Marginal facilities have been closed, and the emphasis has
shifted to more lucrative locations. Taken together,
businesspeople in the Randolph-Sheppard program across the
country made almost exactly 422 million dollars in gross sales in
1997. According to General Services Administration data, in
recent years this program has been among the top fifty food
concession businesses in the country.

     Although the Randolph-Sheppard program has probably put more
money into the pockets of blind people than any other single
program, it is sometimes criticized or attacked. Those who want
it to do more than it has done demand to know why it isn't bigger
and better. Those who would like to get hold of the money it
generates claim that it provides unreasonable advantages to a
small group of vendors--vendors who are occasionally referred to
as unreasonable, ungrateful, arrogant, and greedy. It is
speculated that the vendors are sometimes called "greedy" because
they maintain the perverse opinion that they should keep the
income they earn rather than cheerfully giving it up so that
someone else can spend it.

     The most recent effort to capture the program came to light
in August of 1998. Robert Humphreys, a lawyer on retainer for the
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America (an affiliate of the
American Council of the Blind), tried, along with Ralph Sanders
and a few other of his cronies, to persuade members of Congress
that the Randolph-Sheppard program is a dismal failure. The best
way to save the program (they said) would be to turn it over to
Humphreys and his associates. Their proposal would have
eliminated the indefinite priority for new vendors entering the
program. Vendors already operating facilities would be permitted
to remain a part of the program "unless terminated," but new
vendors would be forced out in three to five years. During this
process Humphreys's organization would receive substantial sums
for "consultation" and "training." Even a cursory reading of
their proposal suggests strongly that Humphreys and his allies
are seeking to exploit the blind in order to gain control over
the program. In promoting this scheme, Humphreys and his friends
say they are promoting positive programs for the blind. Remember,
Humphreys is a lawyer representing the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors
of America, an ACB affiliate. And also remember the client he
represents did not know of the proposal he made to Congress.

     But there is more. Ralph Sanders (who has done what he could
to harass the NFB since he and we parted company in the early
eighties) is now employed by the Cantu Corporation. Cantu has
made efforts to secure vending operations which by rights should
be a part of the Randolph-Sheppard program. Some of these vending
operations are large food service facilities on military bases.
The plan, apparently, is that with Sanders's help Cantu will use
blind vendors to secure locations that the company will then
operate. Vending operations will be awarded in the name of the
blind, but Cantu will do the work, and Cantu will collect most of
the profit.

     But there is still more. Ralph Sanders lives in Baltimore,
Maryland, at 12 East Henrietta Street. A recent mailing from that
address on the letterhead of an organization calling itself the
National Association of Randolph-Sheppard State Committees asks
that a payment of twenty-five dollars be forwarded for each
vending facility in the United States. If all such payments were
to be made, the total would amount to approximately $85,000--
$85,000 which would be spent at the discretion of whoever
collects it at 12 East Henrietta Street.

     In late August of 1998, a meeting was convened at the
National Center for the Blind. Leaders of the Blind Merchants
Association (the Merchants Division of the National Federation of
the Blind) and the ACB's Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America
were present. Background documents exposing the plots to take
over the Randolph-Sheppard program were reviewed. Although Bob
Humphreys works for the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, the
ACB vendors present were unaware that their legal counsel had
sent a proposal to Congress to alter the Randolph-Sheppard Act
significantly. During the meeting the representatives of the
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America indicated that Ralph Sanders
had been appointed to serve as their legislative representative
in Washington. Sanders had neglected to tell them that he had
joined Humphreys in promoting the takeover of the Randolph-
Sheppard program. They did seem to be aware of several unsavory
and financially questionable episodes in Sanders's recent past,
but they admitted that they couldn't think of anyone else capable
of doing their legislative work. If this is an example of what
Sanders is prepared to do to help vendors, the Randolph-Sheppard
Vendors of America are indeed to be pitied, and all of us in the
blindness field can batten down the hatches for stormy weather to
come.  
                           *********
     Note: As this issue was going to press, Terry Camardelle,
president of the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, told
President Maurer that, although the RSVA had intended to appoint
Ralph Sanders officially as its legislative representative, the
organization has now decided not to do so.  
                           ********* 
     Here are a transmittal letter and the original proposal as
Humphreys, Sanders, and company first submitted it to Senators
Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Note that the letter is addressed
to Liz Connell, a member of Stevens's staff and carbon-copied to
Mark Fox, one of Senator Inouye's staffers. Here are the two
documents:
                           **********
                                                    June 11, 1998
                           **********
(hand delivered)
Ms. Elizabeth Connell
Legislative Assistant
c/o Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
                           **********
Dear Liz:

     Following your recent telephone discussion with Sandy
Sanderson and Ralph Sanders, the substance of which was related
to me, and my conversations with Mark Fox and others, I have put
together an enhanced concept for the Jennings Randolph Institute
which I believe conforms to what Senator Stevens would like to
see the Institute accomplish. His vision, as I perceive it, is to
evolve Randolph-Sheppard into a fully privatized entrepreneurship
program. I agree that, properly conceived and implemented, this
new approach would result in the creation of hundreds--perhaps
thousands--of fully competitive, non-subsidized self-employment
opportunities for blind people, utilizing the existing blind
vending facility program as a training ground. At the same time
there is a strong potential for reducing state expenses and the
burden on the taxpayer.

     The Jennings Randolph Institute is perfectly positioned,
with Senator Stevens's help and support, to be both a catalyst
and facilitator for this purpose. The Institute would undertake
the following essential activities:

1. Enter into national partnering agreements with a select number
of major companies which have retail sales outlets (examples:
Subway, Hallmark Cards, Tower Records, Blockbuster Video) under
which blind vendors in the Randolph-Sheppard program would be
trained in accordance with the standard training packages of the
companies, but with additional technology, educational materials
in accessible media, and assistive-service components identified
by JRI to ensure the successful preparation of the candidate
blind entrepreneurs.

2. Arrange for a total initial support package of not more than
twelve months' duration for blind entrepreneurs, which includes:
(a) business plan development; (b) vocational rehabilitation seed
money where necessary; (c) Small Business Administration low-
interest loans or bank loans through institutions with which JRI
has partnering agreements; and (d) licensing assistance and
franchise fee or business entry payments.

3. Serve as a quality evaluation mechanism for state vending
facility programs through self-assessment, program review, and an
accreditation or seal-of-approval program.

     The complete program would ultimately convert the existing
Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program conducted by the
states by making greatly expanded opportunities available to
blind people in the private sector. As I envision the program,
with the infusion of leadership by the Jennings Randolph
Institute, a dual track system would be put in place under which
a currently licensed blind vendor would be given the option of
retaining his or her vending facility in the current program or
training for the private sector. All newly licensed blind
individuals would continue to be trained by the state licensing
agencies, licensed, and placed in vending facilities in federal,
state, and private buildings. After a period of competency
development and experience, the vendor would be required to enter
the private entrepreneurship training program.

     With the support of the state agency and with JRI as the
facilitator for training and placement, the candidate
entrepreneur would enter (for example) the Subway management
training course. The state agency would obtain a loan for the
blind entrepreneur with a participating partner bank or through
SBA to pay the Subway franchise fee. After successful operation
of the retail establishment, the blind entrepreneur might be
given the opportunity to purchase his operation and run it as his
or her own business. If, for whatever reason, the individual is
not successful, he or she may reapply to the state licensing
agency for reinstatement as a blind vendor. The state could
reclaim the franchise, and the retail establishment could be held
as an opportunity for another candidate in training.

     I believe the concept just described is viable, although
some research must be conducted to demonstrate and prove its
viability. Additional leadership/center of excellence functions
described in the Concept Statement and Business Plan provided to
you on May 11, 1998, are also important to the improvement of the
existing Randolph-Sheppard program. I would appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you and to discuss my ideas and plans in
greater detail. Please let me know if you would like to do so.
                           **********
                                                       Sincerely,
                                              Robert R. Humphreys
                           **********
cc: Mark Fox
                           **********
                   Jennings Randolph Institute
       The Randolph-Sheppard Act Revitalization Initiative
                        Executive Summary

     Since the enactment of the 1974 amendments to the Randolph-
Sheppard Act and the implementation of regulations, the blind
vending facility program has exhibited negligible growth in
business opportunities for blind licensees. The absence of
incremental growth stems substantially from the fact that the
system itself is closed and that the regulations and the
attitudes of State program officials strongly encourage licensed
vendors to remain within this closed system and not venture out
to more risky, but perhaps more rewarding, opportunities.

     The training and experiential opportunities provided by the
program have significant merit but fail to promote the
realization of skills in a more competitive, real life
environment. Underscoring this posture, the Rehabilitation
Services Administration recognizes placements through the Act as
"noncompetitive." Moreover, the closed system seems to demand
recurring financial support simply for maintenance of existing
placements, through which it continually addresses the needs of
the same core of individuals. Turnover, much less expansion, is
minimal. This inevitably results in disappointing placement and
productivity levels. It would appear that the basic premise of
the program is that individuals served by it are not capable of
self-reliance--a premise the Jennings Randolph Institute believes
is inaccurate and unjust.

     It is becoming increasingly apparent that the lack of
opportunity in the vending facility program results from an
inherently limiting, closed-door design and that the program
(that is, enterprise opportunities for blind people) would grow
substantially if and when that door is opened. A newly designed
program would become a vital training ground, in contrast to the
current closed and somewhat distorted business environment.

     The Jennings Randolph Institute feels strongly that the
program should have a healthy training component, a reasonably
long job experience component, and a cyclical application phase
resulting in a potential move to private enterprise or,
alternatively, reassessment of the vocational choice. Such
changes would have a dramatic impact on the very nature and
quality of the Randolph-Sheppard program. Under the new construct
those currently in the program would retain the option of
continuing under the current closed system until retirement,
termination, or resignation. Those newly entering the program
would be placed on a path toward personal and business self-
reliance, the essence of the American dream.

     The Jennings Randolph Institute is certain that this
fundamental change in approach to the program's structure is not
only appropriate and timely but also essential to its long-term
survival and to the expansion of entrepreneurial opportunities
for blind business people. Appropriateness and timeliness stem
mostly from the stunning changes in the U.S. business environment
since the mid-1970's. Particularly apparent are the expanded
opportunities for those entering small business for the first
time, which advantages include ease of entry, training, support,
standardization of customer service, and the resulting impressive
record of success. The advent of the franchise and a more
standardized and universally accepted approach to merchandising
virtually eliminates the need for reliance on unproven and
unpredictable concepts. The critical necessity of our recommended
program changes is demonstrable--the program is slowly but
certainly eroding, particularly with the downsizing of
government, and the changes will enable blind people to become
independently responsible for their own destinies. The Jennings
Randolph Institute is convinced that the changes represent a new
paradigm that will benefit both the blind individual and the
taxpaying public at a fraction of the current cost and with a
significantly higher return on investment.

     None of the components we are advocating is yet in place,
but the Jennings Randolph Institute is positioned to
conceptualize, research, design, implement, and fully exploit
opportunities specifically designed to train and place eligible
blind individuals in the enterprise mainstream. We have
commitments from an array of experts who are unexcelled in their
knowledge of the workplace, the business world, and the special
requirements of the blind. Our ability to examine and propose
workable approaches to new and revolutionary business
opportunities puts us in a unique niche that will provide the
maximum return for each dollar spent.

     We are also in a unique position to develop extended
partnerships with major business enterprises and funding
institutions. We have identified a number of key corporations
with which we expect to enter national agreements. These
capabilities, with the regular and direct involvement of the
Institute in the expansion of the program, ultimately will
enhance substantially the likelihood of individual success and
will reduce the dollars required for successful placements. The
Jennings Randolph Institute will add significant value to the
process.

     On the page following the text of this Executive Summary we
provide a flow chart which demonstrates the concepts outlined
above. The following annotation sets forth an abbreviated
explanation of each of the key components of the flow chart.
                           **********
Annotation to key components:
                           **********
1. Randolph-Sheppard training--new training model is recommended
by JRI consistent with existing business alliance models.

2. Licensure--a function of the State Licensing Agency.

3. Vendor manages for 3 years minimum--the traditional operating
model for Randolph-Sheppard--positions the vendor for true
independence. JRI defines the model and maximizes the State's
efforts.

4. Vendor candidacy--at year 3 of a vendor's management, the
vendor is potentially qualified to propose and set up his/her own
business. The State assists the vendor to prepare for candidacy.

5. Business Plan prepared--vendor/trainee prepares the plan to
exit the Randolph-Sheppard program and become independent based
upon JRI-provided model.

6. Plan submitted for review--the business plan is presented to a
select, qualified panel under JRI-developed standards, which
panel reviews the plan for quality and viability.

7. Approved? Did the panel approve the vendor's business plan?

8, 9, 10. Plan not approved. The vendor may make three attempts
to have the plan approved. Upon failure of the third attempt, the
vendor is referred to the vocational rehabilitation program for
reassessment of his/her objectives. If the rejection follows the
first or second attempt, the vendor returns to operate a standard
vending facility and obtain more experience.

11. If the plan is approved, the State Licensing Agency assists
with financing of the new business utilizing the model
established and facilitated by JRI.

12, 13. If the financing is successful, the SLA connects with the
JRI-approved business partner.

14. The vendor, with SLA support, enters training for the
enterprise of choice.

15. JRI is available to make the special adaptations for the
blind entrepreneur necessary for successful training.

16. Upon completion of training, the vendor begins operation of
his/her enterprise.

17. At predetermined milestones JRI and the State evaluate the
vendor's progress toward independence.

18. JRI compiles all program data, analyzes data, and submits
recommended program improvements to the State Licensing Agency.
                           **********
     As soon as these documents came to the attention of James
Gashel, NFB Director of Governmental Affairs, plans were made to
bring members of the NFB's Merchant Division and representatives
of the ACB's Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America together for
discussions. The day following that meeting, which President
Maurer described at the beginning of this article, a memorandum
was circulated broadly by the NFB in the hope of sounding the
alarm to everyone with an interest in the survival of the
Randolph-Sheppard program. Here, in part,  is the text of that
memorandum:
                           **********
                           MEMORANDUM
DATE:     August 25, 1998
FROM:     James Gashel
          Director of Governmental Affairs
          National Federation of the Blind
RE:       A breach of trust: the Randolph-Sheppard program is
          threatened from within
                           **********
     Yesterday, August 24, 1998, a plot to destroy the Randolph-
Sheppard program in the name of reforming it was exposed. This
occurred at a meeting of leaders of the National Federation of
the Blind (NFB) and the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America
(RSVA) held at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore.
The meeting was called by Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the
National Federation of the Blind. The purpose was to promote
united action by the NFB and RSVA on behalf of all blind vendors,
but substantial doubt was cast on the possibility of future
cooperation.

     The information which was disclosed at the meeting is
summarized here with a few necessary comments by way of
introduction. The issue is then presented more fully in the
letters which follow. Since the issues raised are of consequence
to all blind people and agencies serving the blind, this
information is intended for broad distribution.

     The priority for blind persons to operate business
enterprises in public areas is certainly one of our most valued
statutory rights. Therefore the NFB has never wavered in its
commitment to uphold the program or defend the vendors. In fact,
this commitment is demonstrated year-in and year-out to the tune
of tens of thousands of dollars spent on legal cases and program
initiatives related to blind vendors.

     RSVA is an organization specifically consisting of vendors.
For those who may not know, it is a special-interest affiliate of
the American Council of the Blind (ACB). Robert Humphreys is an
attorney in Washington, D.C., who serves as legal counsel for the
RSVA. Ralph Sanders, a former Maryland vendor, is RSVA's
legislative representative.

     These are (or at least should be) positions of trust and
responsibility, not to mention accountability, to the RSVA
membership. Imagine our surprise, therefore, to learn that both
Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Sanders are spearheading a campaign to
scuttle the blind vendor priority as it is known today.

     Their plan is to use a privately-held corporation, a
corporation which Mr. Humphreys and his friends have created and
named. They have given their corporation the high-flown name of
the "Jennings Randolph Institute." Mr. Humphreys is a principal
founder of the institute and may well envision himself as the CEO
of the privatized Randolph-Sheppard program.

     Under the plan the program would be privatized by limiting
the time allowed for any blind vendor to manage a Randolph-
Sheppard facility. The time limit would be approximately three
years with the possibility of something like a two-year
extension. By "privatizing" they mean the desire to form
relationships with national franchise chains, such as Subway and
Blockbuster Video. Although the desire may be laudable, it falls
far short of the priority to operate an actual business in a
prime location with real customers. This is now achieved through
the existing Randolph-Sheppard Act.

     It should be noted that their privatization plan would not
immediately limit the rights of existing blind vendors. However,
all new vendors who are licensed after the plan is enacted would
be required to accept a time-limited opportunity. The trade-off
would be the hope that placement could be achieved in franchise
operations. Therefore newly licensed vendors would be required to
apply to the Jennings Randolph Institute for an opportunity in
the privatized arrangement or seek retraining through vocational
rehabilitation.

     At the meeting the representatives from RSVA defended the
privatization plan and demonstrated support for its content.
However, they denied knowing that their lawyer and legislative
representative--Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Sanders--had already
presented the plan to the Congress. [Jim Gashel then describes
what might have happened to the Randolph-Sheppard Act in the
legislative process if the plan to change the program had not
been discovered. He then continues:]

     In light of these facts everyone who has an interest in the
prosperity of the Randolph-Sheppard program should read the
correspondence which follows. Bear in mind that the letter of
August 3 from Mr. Humphreys went to the executive director of the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.
If this agency has an interest in changing the Randolph-Sheppard
Act at all, it would be to seize the opportunity to change the
blind vendor program into a disabled vendor program. That would
also be the objective of WID (the World Institute on Disability),
which Mr. Humphreys praised effusively in his letter of August 3.

     Finally, it is not necessary to create an avalanche of
letters to Senator Stevens objecting to the privatization plan.
However, letters from representatives of vendors, such as persons
who chair state committees, and letters from state agency
directors would reinforce the view that Congress should not
consider the plan.
                           **********
     That was Mr. Gashel's memo. Two of the enclosures--the June
11 letter to Elizabeth Connell and the executive summary of the
JRI proposal--appear earlier in this article. The important
information in the August 3 letter was summarized in Mr. Gashel's
memorandum.

     As soon as the documents circulated by the NFB became
public, Humphreys and Co. swung into damage-control-mode. Robert
Humphreys posted an open letter to the blindness community on the
Internet dated August 28, 1998. In that letter he said that he
was a good man and a hard worker, that he had written the 1974
amendments to the Randolph-Sheppard Act, that he had held a
number of positions in which he had supported the Randolph-
Sheppard program, that he thought the National Federation of the
Blind had been mean to him, and that he hadn't done anything to
hurt the program. On September 1, 1998, Humphreys apparently felt
the urge to repeat and enlarge upon what he had said on August
28. Here is what he said:
                           **********
                                                 Washington, D.C.
                           **********
(e-mail message)
Date:     Tuesday, September 1, 1998
Subject:  Second Open Letter from Robert Humphreys
                           **********
     My Concepts for a Better Blind Vending Facility Program
                           **********
     Following the broad distribution of NFB's accusations
against me and my ideas last week, I placed an Open Letter on the
ACB listserv. Since that time I have had an opportunity to
reflect upon some of the comments and reactions I have heard on
the subject of the Jennings Randolph Institute.

     First, it is important for both ACB and NFB members alike to
know that I now understand there is the appearance that the
Jennings Randolph Institute (or at least that aspect of it which
would expand the Randolph-Sheppard program in the private sector)
was developed in a vacuum. It was not. I have raised in various
forums the need to expand in private industry, including the
Mississippi State Randolph-Sheppard Conference in Dallas on March
31 (at which Charlie Allen, NFB Merchants President, appeared on
a panel with me), and in a luncheon in April with NCSAB President
Jamie Hilton and state agency directors Creig Slayton and Dick
Davis, in which I proposed a national conference on the future of
the Randolph-Sheppard program, including a private-sector
initiative. In one form or another, the overall concepts also
have been discussed with Blind Vendor Committee chairs and RSVA
Board members.

     The concept I have developed was released prematurely by NFB
officials who did not appreciate or understand that the concept
was--and is--a work in progress. I fully intend to consult with
my friends and colleagues, both blind vendors, state licensing
agencies, and others when it appears the concept is evolving into
a viable one.

     The so-called mandatory feature of the private-sector
initiative in the Jennings Randolph Institute is merely an idea
which does not affect the essential aspects of the Randolph-
Sheppard program. It is designed to stimulate thought and
creativity and in no way would, in my conception of it, punish or
penalize any blind vendor, present or future. In any construct I
would consider reasonable, state licensing agencies would have
the option of adding a new range of private-sector,
entrepreneurial opportunities to their vending facility programs.

     Finally, I have not proposed, nor would I, any change in the
Randolph-Sheppard Act. As I previously stated--most strongly--I
did not write the Randolph-Sheppard Act Amendments of 1974 and
advocate for the program for nearly thirty years to preside over
or encourage the program's demise. It is my strong hope that
those who have attacked me personally, as well as my ideas for
program expansion and new jobs for blind people, will now
reconsider their position and reflect on the need to reduce
unemployment among blind people below the 75 percent level.
                           **********
                                        Robert R. Humphreys, Esq.
                                                 Washington, D.C.
                           **********
     How Mr. Humphreys can assert that his ideas would not change
the Randolph-Sheppard Act is a mystery. The blind vendor priority
would be eliminated for new vendors, and those who enter the
program in the future would have only a few years in which to
remain in it. However, there is more to the series of Humphreys
memoranda. Here is the final one:
                           **********
(e-mail message)
Subject:  Letter From Robert Humphreys, the sequel
                           **********
                                                September 8, 1998
                           **********
To my friends and colleagues in the blindness community: 

     Because of the unusually wide distribution by the National
Federation of the Blind of materials attacking me and my ideas, I
find it necessary to respond. Although I cannot hope to match the
propaganda machine generated by NFB, perhaps the following will
reach enough opinion makers, independent thinkers, and fair-
minded individuals to bring about some balance in what people
throughout the country are exposed to.

     I encourage you to distribute the enclosed paper as widely
as you can. If, after reading it, you still have questions about
me, the Jennings Randolph Institute, or my expectations for the
Randolph-Sheppard program, please let me know.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                              Robert R. Humphreys
                           **********
  The Jennings Randolph Institute: What it Is and What it Isn't
                Separating Fact from Fabrication
                  by Robert R. Humphreys, Esq.
                           **********
      Mark Maurer, Jim Gashel, and Don Morris of the National
Federation of the Blind have leveled some very serious charges
against me and have made a variety of allegations about a new
nonprofit organization I have created for the purpose of
benefiting the Randolph-Sheppard blind vending facility program.
I have named it the Jennings Randolph Institute. It is time--some
would say it is past time--to put these allegations and charges,
which are nothing more than libel and distortion, to rest, once
and for all.

     I will begin at the beginning. For those of you who do not
know me or know about me, it is important to give you some
information on my background and experience. [Again, Humphreys
tells us that he is a good man and that he has held a number of
important positions. We would not reprint all that he says on
this topic, except that he so clearly wants people to know that
he claims credit for much of what the Randolph-Sheppard program
has done. Now back to the text:] As Special Counsel to the United
States Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee and assistant to
Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, the father of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act and ardent patron of the blind vending
facility program, it was I who wrote the Randolph-Sheppard Act
Amendments of 1974, singlehandedly. I arranged the hearings and
the witnesses, got the General Accounting Office to study abuses
in the program, negotiated with the House of Representatives on a
final bill.

     From mid-1977 to 1980 I was Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and in the Department of
Education. I was responsible for administration, policy,
management, and program development of the Randolph-Sheppard
program on the national level. After 1980 I entered the practice
of law. Much of what I have worked on during the last eighteen
years has involved, in one way or another, the vending facility
program. I have brought law suits on behalf of blind vendors and
State licensing agencies and have been an arbitrator in numerous
cases, both for vendors and for states. For several years I have
also represented the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America as its
legal counsel. Everything I have done has been for the
improvement, benefit, and expansion of the program. [One is
tempted to ask, "You wouldn't kid us, would you, Bob?" But back
to the Humphreys memorandum.]

     For the past several years it has become increasingly clear
to me that a number of dramatic steps must be taken without
further delay to keep the Randolph-Sheppard program from slowly
but surely withering away. For a long time I wasn't sure what all
those actions should be. Toward the end of 1997 I began to think
seriously and in detail about how I could help improve the
program and, I hoped, turn it around. A month or two later I had
the beginning of an answer, though certainly not the whole
answer: I would create a nonprofit agency which would be free to
do all the things the Rehabilitation Services Administration and
the States could not do, but which needed to be done if the
program was to improve and expand. As the author of the 1974
amendments to the Act and as a national advocate for the program,
I felt strongly that I could not stand idly by while the program
continued to decline.

     In late February, 1998, I had developed the ideas and the
framework for my new nonprofit agency, the Jennings Randolph
Institute (JRI). The key purposes of JRI as I wrote them in the
Articles of Incorporation are as follows:
                           **********
     *To serve as a national expert, authority, and information
resource on the Federal Randolph-Sheppard Act and the program
operating thereunder; to provide education through information,
seminars, and training to state agency officials, attorneys,
blind vendors, arbitrators, and the general public on all aspects
of the vending facility program;

     *To monitor patterns, practices, and actions which violate
the Randolph-Sheppard Act, and to apprise and advise the
Rehabilitation Services Administration about such matters;

     *To identify, develop, and support best practices and
innovations which may improve the blind vending facility program;

     *To serve as an ongoing resource to the Rehabilitation
Services Administration and state licensing agencies with respect
to policy, planning, program development, management, and
administration in the vending facility program; and

     *To serve as a national communication center, source, and
network for such program.
                           **********
     [These are the goals outlined in the Humphreys proposal, and
despite a certain presumptuousness, they are lofty enough.
However, one does wonder whether the government thinks it needs
all this advice, and surely sometimes blind vendors would want to
have a voice in all of the planning being done for their good.
But back to the Humphreys document.]
                           **********
     I would suggest to the reader that none of these purposes
would do anything other than benefit the Randolph-Sheppard
program.

     When I attended the blind vendors' Sagebrush Conference in
Las Vegas in late February, I asked Bert Hansen, a friend and
prominent vendor from Nevada, and Warren Toyama, president of the
Hawaii Association of the Blind, a longtime vendor and friend, to
serve as incorporators of the Jennings Randolph Institute. Both
agreed, and when I returned to Washington, I filed the Articles
and got the Institute incorporated. An incorporator has no
function other than to get a corporation up and running as a
registered entity and to select the initial board of directors.

     At this point in history, I have to backtrack a bit.
Following extensive discussion by the members of the Randolph-
Sheppard Vendors of America at the 1997 ACB/RSVA conference in
Houston, Warren Toyama arranged a meeting with his longtime
friend, Senator Daniel Inouye, for himself, Filo Tu, another
Hawaii vendor, and me. This took place in August, 1997. As
reported on numerous occasions, this was a meeting of great
accomplishment and moment--Senator Inouye agreed to become a
champion for the Randolph-Sheppard program. Following that
success, I was encouraged to begin identifying other potential
Congressional supporters for the program.

     The first person to come to mind was Senator Ted Stevens of
Alaska. Senator Stevens is a high-ranking and powerful, very
senior Republican. He is Chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee. His father was blind, and he had long been a friend of
Sandy Sanderson, who recently was elected to the Board of
Directors of the American Council of the Blind. I asked Sandy to
arrange a meeting with Senator Stevens for the purpose of
developing his interest in the vending facility program. Not only
did Sandy arrange the meeting, he flew from Anchorage to
Washington, in part to participate in it. Ralph Sanders, a vendor
from Maryland, had worked with Sandy on a number of issues and
had become acquainted with Senator Stevens and his staff. Ralph
also attended the meeting, which took place on March 9 of this
year.

     It was my expectation in meeting with Senator Stevens to
convince him that he should join Senator Inouye as a champion for
the vending facility program. Sandy, Ralph, and I told the
Senator of all the problems we were having with the Department of
Defense, GSA, the Postal Service, and the Interior Department and
asked him to help us strengthen the Federal priority. Senator
Stevens looked at things differently. He took the position that
he would help us keep what we have, but it made no sense to
rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; that is to say, because
the Federal government was downsizing, as were State governments
in many cases, there would be little opportunity in the future to
expand the program on Federal property. Instead we should be
looking toward the private sector to expand employment for the
blind. Stevens noted that tax credits or other means might be
utilized to encourage private building owners to allow the
establishment of vending facilities.

     Some time passed after the meeting with Senator Stevens, but
finally I was able to get key staff from the offices of Senators
Inouye and Stevens to meet with me to see whether, and how, they
would support an initiative involving the Randolph-Sheppard
program. This meeting took place on April 28, 1998. I recommended
possible Congressional funding for the Jennings Randolph
Institute, particularly focusing on the idea of a national center
of excellence for the program. At this time I had not considered
utilizing the Institute as a means of expanding the program into
the private sector.

     By mid-May my thinking about JRI had evolved to the point of
identifying four core areas, or principal activities, for the
Institute. These were (1) a National Information Resource,
collecting all important documents relevant to the Randolph-
Sheppard program and serving as an information exchange for
vendors and program officials; (2) a Policy Development Center to
bring in program authorities and creative thinkers to address
specific problems in the program; (3) an RSA Program Support
capability, to assist the Rehabilitation Services Administration
accomplish its Randolph-Sheppard mission; and (4) a Best
Practices Grants and Regional Training capability, to give
incentives to States to create new and productive concepts for
the program through grants and to assist states in their training
needs, both for staff and for vendors, where needed.

     After a couple of weeks Mark Fox of Senator Inouye's office
and I finally got together to discuss Fox's impression of the
April meeting. This was around the end of May. Fox indicated that
both he and Liz Connell from Senator Stevens's office thought I
was giving too much emphasis to a think-tank approach for the
Jennings Randolph Institute, when what was needed was new jobs
for blind people. While I was convinced that the think-tank
program development and coordination activities of JRI were
essential, I also wanted to encourage continued dialog with the
two Senators' offices and to intensify their support for the
vending facility program. I began to think about Senator
Stevens's statements in our March meeting that emphasis needed to
be placed on the private sector.

     While state blind vending facility programs often include
private-sector placements, the Randolph-Sheppard Act itself
directly addresses only facilities on Federal property. The Act's
priority only applies to Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities. There is no possibility, therefore, that any
concept I might develop to have the Jennings Randolph Institute
assist in the creation of jobs in the private sector would have
any impact at all on the Act, the priority, or vendors in Federal
facilities.

     By mid-June, I had developed an initial concept for adding a
private job component to the Jennings Randolph Institute and
decided to share my idea with Mark Fox and Liz Connell. The
concept, as I began to envision it, would involve the creation of
national partnering agreements with major companies which issue
franchises or otherwise establish standardized retail outlets,
such as Subway, Blockbuster Video, or Tower Records. There is
nothing, in my view, that would prevent blind individuals with
business capabilities from running any kind of retail sales or
service organization; just because the program has focused
primarily on food service does not preclude a substantial
presence in other areas.

     Although I had not received a response to my June letter by
the time the Orlando conventions of the American Council of the
Blind and the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America took place in
early July, 1998, I remained hopeful that I would get some
indication of a reaction by sometime in August. I did not share
the Jennings Randolph Institute concept with the RSVA Board, nor
with ACB, because I wanted to ascertain whether it was viable. I
did talk with several RSVA Board members in detail, to sound them
out and get their ideas for improvement of the concept,
particularly as it related to the expansion of the vending
facility program in the private sector. I also discussed my ideas
with several State agency officials. At this juncture everyone
with whom I talked on this subject was quite enthusiastic and
encouraging.

     Meanwhile there were two other meetings in which I
participated which helped evolve the concepts I had under
development: On March 31 I participated in a national conference
hosted by the Mississippi State Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center on blindness and low vision in Dallas. I was on a
panel on the need to preserve the Federal priority in Randolph-
Sheppard. The panel included Charlie Allen, then president of the
NFB Merchants Division; Gene Hiesler, RSVA Board member and a
vendor from Texas; and Mike Hooks, the new BEP Director for the
Texas Commission for the Blind.

     I took the position that we in the blind-vendor community
have periodic meetings, discuss the problems in the program, and
then go home and do nothing until the next meeting. We need, I
said, to take an organized and coordinated approach to the
problems of the program. I urged that a number of things be done,
including expansion of the vending program in the private sector
and the convening of a national conference of the best minds in
the country to discuss where the program is going and how to
improve it. There was unanimous support for my position from the
audience.

     In mid-April I had lunch with Jamie Hilton, president of the
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind and head of the
New Jersey Commission for the Blind; Creig Slayton, Iowa
Commission director; Dick Davis, Minnesota director; Joe Cordova
and George Arsnow of the Rehabilitation Services Administration's
Office for the Blind and Visually Impaired; and Elton Moore and
John Maxson of Mississippi State. I presented my idea for a
national conference on Randolph-Sheppard. All in attendance
supported it, and subsequently the NCSAB's Randolph-Sheppard
Committee endorsed it, as did NCSAB at large. NCSAB's Executive
Committee then withdrew the endorsement for purposes of further
study, with the expectation of voting on the idea again during
the Fall meeting.

     At the end of July, at the direction of the RSVA Board, I
was able to secure an invitation to become a member of the
National Blue Ribbon Panel on Self-Employment, Small Business,
and Disability, which met in Chicago for the purpose of making
recommendations to the National Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities established under the President's
Executive Order. I believed it was extremely important to ensure
that no recommendation would go forward that would be adverse to
the Randolph-Sheppard program. The recommendations to be made to
the National Task Force, which in turn will recommend action to
the President and the Congress, fortunately will not include any
negatives for Randolph-Sheppard.

     During the course of the Blue Ribbon Panel meeting I had
occasion to talk with Tony Coelho, Chairman of the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, a prominent
former Democratic Member of Congress who was the chief House
sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I told Tony of my
ideas for the Jennings Randolph Institute, and he volunteered to
discuss the matter with Senator Ted Stevens, who was by
coincidence soon to attend the World Trade Fair in Lisbon,
Portugal, with Tony, the Fair's U.S. Representative. I
reinforced, in talking to John Lancaster, Executive Director of
the President's Committee, my discussion with Coelho in a letter
dated August 3. Lancaster, according to my information, passed
along my letter and Executive Summary of my thinking on the JRI
privatization initiative to Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary of
Education, for her review and comment.

     In early August I presented my thinking on the Jennings
Randolph Institute to the Legislative Working Group, a biweekly
meeting of blindness organizations in Washington, comprised of
representatives of the American Council of the Blind, American
Foundation for the Blind, Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, National
Industries for the Blind, and Blinded Veterans Association, Inc.,
and myself. There was great interest among the members of the
group, with several expressing the belief that JRI was an
exciting, creative, innovative concept.

     One of the ideas I advanced for the Jennings Randolph
Institute has caused anxiety and consternation among blind
vendors and State agencies, and which must be explained fully. It
is believed, because NFB has put it out as fact, that I am
promoting privatization of the vending-facility program and that
every vendor would have to move into a private-sector job within
three years. The fact is--the truth is--I have never proposed a
change in the Randolph-Sheppard Act, nor to privatize it.
                           **********
     [We interrupt to note that Humphreys slips in this
reinterpretation of his earlier descriptions of his plan. In the
June 11 letter to Liz Connell he describes a two-track program in
which current vendors would be grandfathered in to the new
program and could keep their current locations. But when he
describes the revised program for new vendors, he says that after
three years they have three tries to develop a plan that is
acceptable to JRI officials, and if they don't measure up, they
will be counseled to alter their vocational goals. Humphreys's
original executive summary says nothing about future vendors
being permitted to return to the Randolph-Sheppard program as we
have known it. Following the furor, however, in late August,
Humphreys's tune begins to change. But let us return to the
Humphreys text.]
                           **********
     I have proposed that the Jennings Randolph Institute, when
it is established, help State licensing agencies expand into the
private sector through the use of franchisee training adapted to
the needs of blind vendors, national partnering agreements, Small
Business Administration guarantees, and low-interest loans. One
concept I floated was the notion that vendors coming into the
program would have the opportunity to move into private-sector,
high-income potential jobs after training in the Randolph-
Sheppard program, that a new vendor would have three
opportunities to enter the private franchise job market with
State agency and JRI support, and that if those efforts were
unsuccessful, the individual would be returned to the vocational
rehabilitation system for placement in another area, including
the standard blind-vending facility program. I emphasize that
none of these ideas was or is now set in concrete. NFB leaders
have spread lies in an attempt to control my ideas and defeat any
innovation that will benefit the Randolph-Sheppard program.

     It was my fervent hope, a hope which I maintained until late
August, 1998, that I would find encouragement for my new ideas in
the Congress and throughout the blindness field. I am still
hopeful that the Jennings Randolph Institute will succeed,
because good ideas do not die. The Jennings Randolph Institute
was, when I established it in March and it is now, a work in
progress--a collection of ideas that has not yet reached
maturity.

     NFB leaders decided to launch a smear campaign of lies and
slander. They went so far as to offer to the blindness community
so-called documentation of my efforts to destroy the vending
facility program. Did they forget that I am the architect of the
modern-day Randolph-Sheppard Act? It is pathetic that new ideas
would be attacked without any valid reason or justification. But,
as many of you have told me, this is not an unusual tactic for
these people. These types of actions, past and present, bring
nothing but dishonor and disrepute to those who promote them and,
unfortunately, to their organization and its good and innocent
members.

     These vile tactics must be challenged. As I have said over
and over again, at a time when blind people are faced with an
unemployment rate of 75 percent, even in a time of unparalleled
prosperity, and when the Randolph-Sheppard program has lost a
quarter of its vendors, the danger is not in new ideas, but in a
lack of ideas. We must work together, and we must begin quickly.
Those with ideas must be supported in their efforts, not
hindered. There is much to do, so let us get on with the task.
                           **********
     That is what Humphreys had to say, but clearly not everyone
remembered recent history the way he did. Here, for example, is a
memo written by Richard Davis, Director of the state agency in
Minnesota and a participant in some of the events recounted in
the Humphreys documents. This is the way Dick Davis remembers
things:
                           **********
(e-mail message)
To:       NCSAB Members
From:     Richard C. Davis, Chair, National Council of State
          Agencies for the Blind, Inc., Randolph-Sheppard
          Committee
Re:       More About Randolph-Sheppard Institute
Date:     September 15, 1998
                           **********
     NCSAB President Jamie Hilton recently sent members copies of
correspondence regarding the Randolph-Sheppard Institute. Below
is even more correspondence on this issue, including "Some
Clarifications" by ACB President Paul Edwards, an "Open Letter to
Jim Gashel" by Ralph Sanders, another open letter from Bob
Humphreys with a paper entitled "The Randolph-Sheppard Institute:
What It Is And What It Isn't," and a message from Sandy
Sanderson. With the exception of Mr. Edwards's communication,
some of the attached are pretty unpleasant to read. I am reminded
of the old saying, "A good offense is the best defense."

     It is essential that, in reading the attached, NCSAB members
make sure that personalities not obscure what actually happened.
From what I have seen, Mr. Humphreys, who has long been involved
with Randolph-Sheppard, unilaterally decided to reshape the
program without involving its primary stakeholders. By
stakeholders I mean blind vendors represented by the ACB's
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America and the NFB's Blind
Merchants Division and the state licensing agencies, represented
by the NCSAB.

     Contrary to what Mr. Humphreys implied in his second open
letter, he did not discuss the notion of a private-sector
initiative in the April 22 NCSAB luncheon meeting which Jamie
Hilton, Creig Slayton, and I attended. At that meeting he made no
mention of the Randolph-Sheppard Institute or his contacts with
members of Congress. His only suggestion was that NCSAB support a
national visionary meeting on the future of Randolph-Sheppard.
Later that day Ralph Sanders attended the Randolph-Sheppard
Committee meeting and spoke. Although the meeting focused on the
future of Randolph-Sheppard, he made no mention of the Institute.

     Bob Humphreys and I both were present at a meeting with the
U.S. Postal Service on June 26. All the leading stakeholders were
in attendance, yet he made no mention of the Randolph-Sheppard
Institute or any other kind of private-sector initiative. He has
never discussed these concepts with me as Randolph-Sheppard
Chair, Jamie Hilton as NCSAB president, or any other NCSAB member
that I know of. Since we were all on the best of terms, working
together to increase employment opportunities for blind vendors
in the U.S. Postal Service, it seems incredible that he would
have neglected to do so.

     Nevertheless, he seemed to have plenty of time to discuss
his concepts with, and submit concept papers to, Senators Inouye
and Stevens and their staffs, Tony Coelho, John Lancaster, and
others not directly involved with the Randolph-Sheppard program.
His letter of September 8 and the attached paper show that he
worked extensively behind the scenes without telling anybody but
a few close friends.

     For some time the Randolph-Sheppard Act has been under
attack by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of
the Army, NISH, private-sector vending companies, and other
organizations which challenge blind vendors' priority on federal
property. The Department of the Army would like to amend the Act
to exclude troop mess halls from its coverage. Only a year ago we
banded together to defeat a seemingly innocuous amendment to the
Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill which would have put
blind vendors under the control of the Veterans Canteen Service.

     Mr. Humphreys should know that any unilateral, behind-the-
scenes action would be viewed as a threat to the program. It is
no surprise that Jim Gashel reacted as he did when he learned of
Mr. Humphreys's actions. The question is, given the current
climate regarding Randolph-Sheppard, why did Mr. Humphreys act as
he did? If his plan was really a great one, why not bring it to
all of us, discuss it with us, get our support for it, and let us
all approach the Congress together? That would have made the most
sense. Why work behind the scenes at all?

     Maybe ego was a factor. Mr. Humphreys's open letters and
paper are filled with "I's" and "my's." He tells us that he wrote
the 1974 Randolph-Sheppard Amendments, that the Randolph-Sheppard
Institute was his idea, and that he decided Senator Stevens would
be a good champion for the Randolph-Sheppard program.

     It is almost as if Mr. Humphreys regards the Randolph-
Sheppard program as his own personal property. It isn't,
regardless of his past efforts on its behalf. It belongs to blind
vendors, their consumer organizations and elected committees of
blind vendors, the state licensing agencies which run it, and the
citizens who fund it. It provided the first public demonstration
of the competencies of blind people, and it continues to offer
excellent opportunities for blind persons to run their own small
businesses.

     I am afraid Mr. Humphreys's actions themselves have done a
great deal to damage his reputation. His accusations to the
contrary, the NFB did us all a service by discovering those
actions and reporting them. I am glad that ACB President Paul
Edwards has taken a firm stand and disavowed any support of Mr.
Humphreys's actions. It is now time for the open letters to come
to an end, and for Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sanderson, and
friends to stop fooling with Randolph-Sheppard and give the rest
of us a chance to repair the damage.

     For the rest of us, I hope we can re-establish the good
relationships we had before this whole unfortunate incident
occurred. The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard started a
period of unprecedented cooperation between the Blind Merchants
Division, the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, and the
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind. Many of us have
developed new friendships with former adversaries as a result.
Let's learn from this experience and take steps to assure it will
never happen again.
                           **********
cc: NFB and ACB
                           **********
     That's what Dick Davis had to say. Now here is one of
several open letters written by Jim Gashel:
                           **********
                                                  August 31, 1998
An open letter to Robert Humphreys, Esquire
                           **********
Dear Bob:

     As you know, we first met in 1974. Since that time I have
never had anything but the very highest regard for you until
August 18, 1998. That was the date when I first became aware of
your proposal to privatize the Randolph-Sheppard blind vendor
program. Believing that I knew you fairly well, that was
surprising to me. But the thing that has surprised me even more
and, I must say, has saddened me as well, is the fact that you
developed the plan and then took it directly to the Congress.
More than that, you took the plan to Senator Ted Stevens because
he chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. You did that
because you wanted to see authority for the plan and its funding
to be enacted as part of an appropriations bill for fiscal year
1999.

     As you know, Bob, this is a great way to slide something
through the Congress and have it become law, but it is not a
straightforward way. In fact, I have no evidence that you would
even have tried to inform the blindness community of what you
were up to until after the fact. As you know, I have evidence
that you were presenting this plan to Congress as far back as May
and June, 1998. I also have evidence that your efforts have not
been casual. In fact, you submitted revised information on your
proposal as recently as August 3, 1998. Still you failed to
inform either the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America or the
National Federation of the Blind that you were doing this.

     Brainstorming within our community is one thing, but writing
up a plan and taking it to the Congress as though you represent
the blind is quite another. At this point neither the National
Federation of the Blind nor the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of
America has endorsed the privatization plan. Therefore, if you
really care about blind people in the way that you used to, why
didn't you at least have the decency to work with the blind first
before you took the plan to Congress?

     On March 4, 1998, you incorporated the Jennings Randolph
Institute as a District of Columbia Corporation without the
slightest involvement by the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of
America. You did this even though you serve as the attorney on
retainer to the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America. I am not
certain of this, but I have heard a report that your billing to
the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America has charged that
organization for the costs of forming the corporation, even
though that organization knew little or nothing of what you were
doing. According to the officers of that organization, they
certainly did not know that you had been going to the Congress
with a plan to privatize the program. If that is so, most
attorneys that I know would consider acts such as these to be an
ethical breach.

     Much of your letter to the blindness community, to which I
am now responding, consists of name calling aimed mainly at the
National Federation of the Blind. For example, you say that the
disclosure of your actions was cowardly on our part and suggest
that we should have contacted you first. If that is so, isn't it
even more cowardly to skulk around behind our backs and take the
plan to the Congress? As you know, I was in your presence on more
than one occasion since May when at least a mention of the
prospects for legislation would have been appropriate. So, Bob,
you--not I--have set the standard for secrecy.

     In fact this is the most distressing aspect of this entire
episode. It is one thing for either the NFB or the ACB to take a
proposal to the Congress, either together or separately, but it
is quite another for someone, such as you, to set yourself up as
the spokesman for the blind and then to tell the blind what you
have done after the deed has been done. This is the kind of
conduct that the NFB can definitely never accept, and I truly
doubt that the ACB can accept such behavior either. If we have
anything in common, and I believe that we do, I am certain we
agree on the view that important decisions which affect us must
be made by us. The notion that you can presume to speak for us
without approval to do so is something that cannot be accepted.

     Finally, Bob, I am truly sorry and greatly saddened that you
have become involved in something like this. I know that this is
something that Senator Randolph would not have wanted you to do
because he genuinely listened to the blind. As you know, he would
never have proposed something like the privatization plan in the
Congress unless he was sure that blind people were on board with
the idea. Just read your own words in your letters to Liz Connell
in Senator Stevens's office in which you refer to the privatizing
plan as "my idea." Never once do you refer to the plan as
anything but your idea. The legacy of Jennings Randolph is that
he believed in blind people, and he also wanted to hear first
from us about what we wanted. Why have you forgotten that? That
is the saddest part of all of this for me.
                           **********
                                                     James Gashel
                                 Director of Governmental Affairs
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                           **********
     As you can tell from the allusions to other documents, many
more memoranda and open letters have been written than we have
space to reprint here. Ralph Sanders has said openly that the
only reason the NFB has taken exception to the concept of the
Jennings Randolph Institute is that we did not come up with it
first. He says that we plan to take the idea over for ourselves,
that we will take the money and power from it, and that we will
call it the Jernigan/Randolph Institute. Needless to say, we have
no interest in operating such a program. Even though Sanders is a
vendor and we believe that vendors have the right and the
responsibility to take an active part in determining the future
of the programs that shape their professional lives, Sanders is
perhaps the last person on the face of the earth with whom we
would discuss our future plans and dreams. Such an allegation as
his is nothing short of shocking in its poor taste and small-
mindedness.

     The furor of the past several months has been unpleasant for
everyone. We can rejoice that the possibility of allocating
federal funding for the Jennings Randolph Institute has ended for
this session at least. Let us hope that everyone has learned an
important lesson and that, the next time someone has a bright
idea that affects the lives of thousands in the blindness field,
the matter will be handled differently. Regardless of the
slanders and accusations hurled at us, the NFB will continue to
work to see that the rights and livelihoods of all blind people
are protected from our foes and even from our erstwhile friends.
                           **********
                           **********
[DESCRIPTION: Two photographs accompany this article. One is of a
five or six-year-old boy seated on the floor, reading a book, and
the other is of a nine or ten-year-old girl reading Braille at a
desk. CAPTION: Ellen Bartley (NM)]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Matthew Jin (WA)]
        Young Braille Readers and Their Friends Take Note
                           **********
     From the Editor: From November 1 to February 1 every year a
growing number of elementary and secondary school students who
read Braille take part in the Braille Readers Are Leaders contest
sponsored by the National Organization of Parents of Blind
Children and the National Association to Promote the Use of
Braille. Flex your fingers, kids; the 1999 contest is about to
begin.

     Each spring, after the contest ends, the letters from
grateful parents and teachers begin pouring in. Here is a small
sample of notes Mrs. Cheadle received at the close of the 1998
contest:
                           **********
                                              Salinas, California
                                                 February 2, 1998
                           **********
Dear Friends,

     Thank you for having this contest yearly. It really
accomplishes its purpose. One year my student, _______, won the
contest (first place), and she felt really great about herself.

     This year I have two students entering. One is so excited
about the contest. He missed some school getting a kidney
transplant. The other has been hard to motivate for home reading.
This has been a tremendous influence on them.

     Keep up all of your good work.
                                                     Yours truly,
                                     Kathy Dempsey, VH Specialist
                           **********
                                                Columbus, Georgia
                                                 February 2, 1998
                           **********
Dear Mrs. Barbara Cheadle,

     My name is Marlene Culpepper, and as the school's Braille
teacher I am the certifying authority for our contestants'
participation in your contest. It is my first full year as a
Braille teacher and our first year participating in your contest.
It has been such a positive experience for all of our students.

     One of our students laughed when I mentioned that we were
entering this contest. She said that she didn't read at home for
enjoyment and that reading was not really the activity of her
choice. I am happy to report that with each passing month she
read a greater number of pages and that she began to look forward
to reading more. She enjoys reading now and hopefully has
developed a habit of reading a little each night. . . .

     Our school has four Braille readers, who have all
participated in the contest. I am happy to report 100 percent
participation for our first year.

     Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in your
terrific contest. We look forward to entering again next year.
                           **********
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Marlene Culpepper
                           **********

                                                February 15, 1998
Lincoln, Nebraska
                           **********
Dear Barbara,

     I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and all
of the others who make the contest, Braille Readers Are Leaders,
possible. This is a wonderful service to Braille students. I
would like to describe my experience with the contest.

     I enrolled a third-grade student in the 1997 contest. It was
the first time I had enrolled a student and the first time he had
entered this contest. At the beginning of the contest he was
still only so-so about reading Braille versus reading print. If I
asked him, he probably would have asked for print just so he
could look at the pictures.

     At the beginning of the contest he was not reading Braille
books at home at all. We started with a very small book that was
only nine pages long. He reluctantly agreed. Gradually we added a
book that he took home each day until he was taking about three
books home each school day. Over the weekend he would take nine
books home.

     It took a little while, but the improvement began to show.
During the three months that he read for this contest I feel that
he advanced through a half to perhaps close to a full year of
Braille instruction. By the end of the contest he requested to
read books. He asks to have a reading day, where he will not be
asked to write Braille, but just to read stories. He even sneaks
ahead of my lesson and reads the next story in the Patterns book.

     Please continue to offer this contest for other young
Braille readers. It has made a world of difference for this young
reader and his family.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Susan Stokes
                           **********
     Do you know a Braille-reading student who would benefit from
participating in this contest? The contest form appears at the
center of the print edition of this issue. You can detach it and
pass it along to someone who can make good use of it. If you need
additional copies, you can get them from the Materials Center,
National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230, or call (410) 659-9314.
                           **********
                           **********
*****************************************************************
                         Life Insurance
                           **********
     Life insurance constitutes a very special gift to the
National Federation of the Blind. A relatively easy and direct
form of planned giving is a new life insurance policy. You can
make the NFB the beneficiary and owner of a life insurance policy
and receive a tax deduction on the premium you pay.

     For example, at age fifty you purchase a $10,000 whole life
insurance policy on yourself and designate the NFB as beneficiary
and owner of the policy. The premium cost to you is fully tax-
deductible each year. You may even decide to pay for the entire
policy over a specific period of time, perhaps ten years. This
increases your tax deduction each year over the ten-year period
and fully pays up your policy.

     You may, however, already have a life insurance policy in
existence and wish to contribute it to the NFB. By changing the
beneficiary and owner to the National Federation of the Blind,
you can receive tax savings, depending on the cash value of the
policy. Your attorney, insurance agent, or the National
Federation of the Blind will be able to assist you if you decide
to include the NFB in your planned-giving program through life
insurance. For more information contact the National Federation
of the Blind, Special Gifts, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230-4998, phone (410) 659-9314, fax (410) 685-5653.
*************************************************************
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Marvin Sandler]
Report from the Trenches
                        by Marvin Sandler
                           **********
     From the Editor: The Tuesday afternoon, July 7, general
session of the 1998 convention was memorable for several reasons:
an excellent presidential report, stirring speeches by a federal
judge and a sailor, and a moving, spontaneous tribute to Dr.
Jernigan by those contributing to the new Jernigan fund. This
last event necessitated radical alterations in the agenda, and
one of the things that disappeared entirely as a result was a
brief presentation by Marvin Sandler, President of Independent
Living Aids (ILA), who was leaving the convention later that
evening.

     Since the ILA vs. Maxi-Aids suit seems destined to drag on
in one form or another for months to come, it is appropriate for
us to print here the remarks Mr. Sandler did not have the
opportunity to deliver. This is what he would have said:
                           **********
     I'm the President of Independent Living Aids, which some of
you know by our initials, ILA. I've been given the opportunity to
speak to you for a few minutes about the lawsuit that we filed
against Maxi-Aids and the Zaretsky family during February of
1995. The case went to trial during early November of 1997, and
the jury handed down its verdict on December 8, 1997, after five
weeks of trial and two and one half days of deliberations. The
jury found in our favor on four counts, two federal claims
(copyright infringement and trademark infringement) and two New
York State claims (materially deceptive acts and practices and
false and misleading advertising). They awarded ILA
$2,400,000.06.

     The lawsuit was covered extensively by the Braille Monitor,
which devoted the entire March, 1998, issue to the case. The NFB
is the only organization in this field which reported on this
case. Not a word has appeared in any other journal or publication
in our field. This is an organization that has beliefs and the
guts to express those beliefs in print to its membership and to
the outside world. In the Braille Monitor article of December,
1994, which was published before this lawsuit began, Dr. Jernigan
and Mrs. Pierce wrote, "We long since stopped buying anything at
all from Maxi-Aids, even if their price was the lowest to be had.
We did this because we did not like their behavior or dealings."
That message has been repeated in the latest Braille Monitor,
which was just published last week. Now, that's putting your
money where your mouth is, and that's guts.

     Perhaps other organizations have either not fully understood
the ramifications of this lawsuit to their constituents or didn't
think it was important enough to write about. Perhaps they have
thought that it was simply a spitting war between two companies
and that the issues involved did not affect the blind community
as a whole. The NFB clearly thinks differently.

     Those of you who have had the opportunity to read the
Braille Monitors of December, 1994, and March, 1998, will recall
that one of my complaints against Maxi-Aids was that they had
consistently beaten us on a number of bids by the identical
figure of six cents. You will recall that the award given by the
jury was $2,400,000.06. When I went to thank the jury, the
foreperson said to me, "I hope you appreciate the six cents--that
was to let them know that we know." I've had phone calls from
people who have said, "I just loved the six cents," or "That six
cents was cute." Let me assure you that it wasn't something cute
or something to love--I believe it was a recognition by the jury
that something was wrong, that an offense had been committed, and
that they were letting Maxi-Aids know that "they knew."

     There is something else about which everyone should be
aware. On each of the claims that we made against Maxi-Aids the
jury was asked if Maxi-Aids's conduct and actions were willful,
and in each case the jury unanimously answered, "Yes." They were
asked if Maxi-Aids had willfully infringed on our copyrights, and
they unanimously answered, "Yes." They were asked if Maxi-Aids
had willfully committed trademark infringement, and they
unanimously answered, "Yes." What Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys did
were not the actions of people who didn't realize what they were
doing and who accidentally transgressed. The jury held that the
actions of Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys were willful and
deliberate and intentional.

     Some people who have spoken to me have given me the
impression that they feel that the issues raised in this lawsuit
do not affect them. Well, just read the jury's verdict on our
claims, and you can begin to understand that I fought this case,
not only for ILA, but also for you, the consumers. Question
twelve that was posed to the jury by the judge was, "Did the
plaintiff (ILA) prove that the defendant Maxi-Aids engaged in
materially deceptive acts and practices with regard to the
advertising and sales of its products?" and the answer given by
the jury was, "yes." Next they were asked, "Did the plaintiff
(ILA) prove that the primary injury resulting from the said
deceptive acts and practices were suffered by the public?" and
again the answer was, "Yes." Next they were asked, "Did the
plaintiff ILA prove that it also was injured by the said
deceptive acts and practices?" and once again the jury said,
"Yes." Finally they were asked, "Did the plaintiff ILA prove that
the defendant Maxi-Aids acted willfully when it committed the
deceptive acts and practices?" and again the answer was a
resounding, "yes." Is this a little spitting war between two
competitors, and something that doesn't affect consumers? No way!

     Remember that question, "Did the plaintiff (ILA) prove that
the primary injury...was suffered by the public," and the answer,
"Yes." You were first; ILA was second. That was the way the judge
phrased the questions, and that was the way the jury answered.
This was a battle that I fought, not just for me, but also for
you.

     When someone says that this was a private war between two
competitors and that you, the consumers, were not affected,
remember what was presented and proven at trial. Watches made in
Hong Kong were advertised by Maxi-Aids as made in Switzerland.
They were shipped to consumers like you packed in boxes that
said, "Swiss" and had warranties that stated that the watches
were made in Switzerland. When consumers placed orders for "Magna
Wonder Knives," they received an off-brand knife known as a "Dux"
knife, but the invoice that accompanied the shipment listed the
product as a "Magna Wonder Knife." The evidence at the trial
proved this. When a customer ordered a "Tab Grabber," which is a
device that will open the tabs on pop-top soda cans and will also
open soda bottles, they received a product with an invoice
stating that a tab grabber was being shipped. However, the
product itself was only a can opener that would not open a soda
bottle, but someone at Maxi-Aids had pasted the name "Tab
Grabber" right over the original manufacturer's label that said,
"Can Opener."

     So don't let anyone tell you that you the consumers are not
affected. Just look at the Hong Kong watches advertised as Swiss,
the "Dux" knives substituted for "Magna Wonder Knives" and the
can openers substituted for "Tab Grabbers." And the list goes on
and on and on. We've also uncovered customs fraud and
counterfeiting, which I'll describe in a few minutes.

     There is another aspect to the jury's verdict about which
you should be aware. The jury held Elliot Zaretsky and his son
Mitchel Zaretsky and his daughter Pamela Zaretsky Stein to be
personally liable, along with Maxi-Aids, their corporation. What
this means is that the jury recognized that the responsibility
lay individually against the Zaretsky family, who are the owners
and officers of Maxi-Aids, and they will not be allowed to hide
behind the corporate shield. In a world in which people deny
responsibility and shuffle responsibility onto others, the jury
recognized and ruled that the Zaretskys bore individual
responsibility for the actions taken in the name of Maxi-Aids.

     Now let me bring you up to date on what has happened since
the time of trial. As might be expected, Maxi-Aids's attorneys
have filed motions with the court--three in all. The first
requests that the jury's verdict be set aside, which is the same
thing as asking that it be overturned. The next is that, if they
don't get the first, the jury award should be reduced to what
they feel is a more realistic figure, $14,132. Can you imagine,
they want the amount reduced from a verdict rendered by a jury
who sat through five weeks of trial and who deliberated for two
and one half days, and they claim that it should be reduced from
$2,400,000.06 to $14,132. Finally, they have requested a new
trial on the issue of whether my statement to the Braille Monitor
back in 1994 constitutes libel.

     On our side we have also filed motions. We have filed papers
opposing the motions filed by Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys. We
have also filed motions seeking the recovery of our legal fees,
asked for a permanent injunction to prevent Maxi-Aids from
continuing to engage in the practices of which they were found
guilty, and asked for the confiscation and destruction of all of
their infringing catalogs. These motions are to be argued at a
hearing before the judge on July 17, and I'm sure that the
October issue of the Braille Monitor will carry an article
detailing the results of the judge's final ruling.

     It's almost a certainty that Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys
will appeal if the judge's rulings go severely against them. At
that point the matter will go to the United States Court of
Appeals, which consists of three judges, who will then consider
the entire case and who will rule on whether the jury's verdict
and award plus the judge's rulings on the verdict and award
should be upheld or reduced.

     Part of a lawsuit involves a process called discovery. This
includes demands made by each side for documents as well as
depositions, which are sworn answers to questions given by the
other side's attorneys and which are then used at trial. During
the course of the discovery process we have obtained information
that has led us to believe that there were additional
transgressions by the Zaretskys which were not part of our
original lawsuit. As a result we have filed a new action against
Maxi-Aids, Elliot Zaretsky, and Mitchel Zaretsky under the RICO
statutes. RICO is an acronym used by the government, which was
named after Rico Benadelli, who was the gangster played by Edward
G. Robinson in the movie, Little Caesar. It stands for Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupted Organization.

     We have come across documents that lead us to believe that
Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys have been engaging in customs fraud.
We have in our possession six sets of invoices which were
prepared in duplicate by one of Maxi-Aids's overseas suppliers.
Each set consists of two invoices on which the invoice numbers
are identical and the merchandise is identical in both catalog
number, quantity, and description. However, on one invoice the
pricing for each item is about half the pricing on the other.
There are cover sheets attached, apparently written by the
overseas supplier, which state that there are duplicate invoices
enclosed "as per your request," with the higher-priced invoice to
be used for payment and the other for customs purposes, which,
because of the lower prices written on it, would naturally carry
lower customs duties. There is also a caution, "Do not mix the
two." That's pretty serious stuff. We contend that it is customs
fraud.

     We've also come across something that we contend is
counterfeiting. You all know the Say When(R) liquid level
indicators. They were invented at Kentucky Industries for the
Blind, and they are made by blind workers. We have uncovered
evidence that Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys were counterfeiting
this product, making it on their own, and passing it off as
genuine Say Whens(R) from approximately 1990 until 1995. In
conversations with Robert Byrd, who was at that time running
Kentucky Industries for the Blind, we have been advised that
sales of the genuine Say Whens(R) by Kentucky Industries for the
Blind dropped so precipitously that three blind workers had to be
laid off. We, as suppliers to people who are blind, have an
obligation to support those who support us. As I speak to you
today, ILA is the only major mail order house still supplying the
genuine Say Whens(R).

     As I end my remarks today, I want you to know that I will
continue my efforts to make the playing field level in our
industry. Ours is an industry that needs self-policing, and this
was stated emphatically by Dr. Jernigan in the Braille Monitor
article of December, 1994. I don't want to kid you; I didn't file
my lawsuit against Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys because of
altruism. It all began because Elliot Zaretsky called me up and,
speaking in a voice that I can only describe as ominous, told me
that he was not happy about things that he claimed I had said
about him. He said, "You've been saying bad things about me, and
you better stop." He then told me that I better keep my mouth
shut.

     That was all I needed to hear, and twenty minutes later I
was on the phone with my lawyer. I was outraged that in this day
and age someone could feel so powerful that he could call with
impunity and tell me to keep my mouth shut. So that's how it
started--in the beginning it really was more a spitting war
between two personalities than anything else. However, during the
discovery phase we found things that led us to believe that Maxi-
Aids was acting in a way that was unfair to you, the consumer, as
well as to ourselves and was giving our industry a bad name. So
our interests, yours and mine, coincide. Unfair acts hurt both of
us. There's a saying in the law--it's in Latin, and I never got
beyond my high school Amo, Amas, Amat, so I can't give you the
exact words. However, it roughly translates in English into, "He
who works for himself also works for the king." What this means
is that, in trying to protect ILA's interests, I am also
protecting yours.

     I think that the last paragraph of the March, 1998, Braille
Monitor expressed it well when it stated that now everyone knows
what's been going on. I pledge that ILA will do everything we can
to root out improper practices that affect you, our customers, in
an adverse manner. Our industry needs self-policing, and we will
do our share. When you read updates about our RICO lawsuit
against Maxi-Aids and the Zaretskys, I want you to know that we
are fighting not only for ourselves but also for you.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: ***Maxi-Aids logo from the March issue. Caption:
The Maxi-Aids logo]
           Judge Spatt's Ruling in the Maxi-Aids Case
                           **********
     From the Editor: The preceding article provides a summary of
activity up to the first week of July in the lawsuit brought by
Marvin Sandler and Independent Living Aids (ILA) against Elliot
Zaretsky, his three children, and Maxi-Aids. Following the jury's
decision resoundingly in favor of Independent Living Aids, the
Zaretskys' attorney, Mark Mulholland, made several motions for
reconsideration of various parts of the verdict. Jack Dweck and
Richard Hubell, the ILA counsel, rebutted those motions with
their own, and each side then got one last chance to respond to
what the other had said. Then the Judge, the Hon. Arthur D.
Spatt, went off to consider the arguments and render his
decision, which he did orally in a hearing on July 17 and in
writing on July 25, 1998.

     During the opening minutes of the July 17 hearing, the
parties discussed several legal points. Then Judge Spatt read his
decision, without the citations of legal precedents that would
ultimately be included in the final written document. Because
this case affects every blind person and every agency that
purchases blindness products in the United States, we reprint
here the full text of Judge Spatt's ruling as he presented it on
July 17.
                           **********
Amicus file from 7/17/98. Motion before Judge Spatt.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 17, 1998
INDEPENDENT LIVING AIDS, INC., and MARVIN SANDLER, Plaintiffs, 95
CV 656 (ADS) U.S. Courthouse, Uniondale, New York
vs.
MAXI-AIDS, INC., HAROLD ZARETSKY, MITCHEL ZARETSKY, ELLIOT
ZARETSKY, and PAMELA ZARETSKY STEIN,
Defendants.
CIVIL CAUSE FOR MOTION
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
The Honorable Arthur D. Spatt, United States District Court Judge

     THE COURT: This is the decision of the court: The facts
underlying this case are set forth in the court's earlier
decision and the trial transcript and will not be repeated here.
In addition, I'm going to skim over this decision, and I will
issue a written decision, but I will give you the highlights
orally.

     Briefly summarized, the plaintiff, Independent Living Aids
(ILA), and the defendant, Maxi-Aids, Inc. (Maxi-Aids) are New
York corporations engaged in the mail-order business,
specializing in products for the blind, visually impaired, and
physically disabled. This case arises from ILA's claim that from
1985 to 1995 Maxi-Aids engaged in state and federal copyright
infringement, common-law trademark infringement, unfair
competition, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices.

      Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the plaintiffs on the following actions:

     One, a federal copyright infringement claim based on Maxi-
Aids infringing on ILA's copyrights in its 1985 through 1995
catalog by copying original product listing.

     Two, a federal trademark/service-mark claim arising out of
Maxi-Aids's use of the ILA logo in its advertising, catalog, and
sales program in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the
source.

     Three, a claim arising under New York General Business Law,
Section 349, for willful deceptive acts and practices with regard
to the advertising and sale of its products.

     And, four, willful false advertising in violation of GBL
[General Business Law] Section 350.

     The plaintiffs were not entirely victorious, however, and
the jury rejected the following actions by finding a verdict in
favor of the defendants:

     One, a federal trade dress infringement claim regarding
their "Slimline Lo-Vision watches."

     Two, federal trademark/service-mark claims regarding the
terms "Independent Living," "ILA," "Do More Products," "Maxi-Aids
and Appliances for Independent Living," and "Maxi-Aids Products
for Independent Living."

     Three, a state law claim for intentional interference with
economic benefits relating to bidding procedures.

     Finally, the jury rejected the counterclaim brought by the
defendants against the Plaintiff, Marvin Sandler, for libel,
arising from a letter Sandler wrote to the Braille Monitor, which
published the correspondence.

     Presently before the court are the defendants' motions
pursuant to Federal Rules 50 and 59 and the plaintiffs' cross-
motion for attorneys' fees, a permanent injunction, and a final
judgment embodying a provision requiring the confiscation and
destruction of all infringing catalogues.

     I'm not going to go through the standards of Rule 50 and 59;
they will be in the written opinion. But a motion for judgment as
a matter of law after a jury verdict will not be granted unless,
one, there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the
verdict that the jury's findings can only have been the result of
sheer surmise and conjecture. Or, two, there is such an
overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant, in this
case, the defendants, that reasonable and fair-minded persons
could not arrive at a verdict against them--citations omitted for
all of this.

     In order to grant a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, the court
must find that the verdict is "seriously erroneous" or
constitutes "a miscarriage of justice."

     To grant a motion for a remittitur, namely to reduce the
amount of the verdict, the court must find that the jury's award
was so excessive as to "shock the judicial conscience and
constitute a denial of justice."

     Maxi-Aids asked for judgment as a matter of law on the
copyright infringement count, contending that ILA does not hold a
protected copyright interest in its catalogues published between
1985 and 1995, because these catalogues "were irrevocably placed
in the public domain" in that the majority of the product
listings appeared previously in identical form during the years
1980 through 1984 in non-copyrighted catalogues.

     Thus, Maxi-Aids asserts, the 1985 to 1995 catalogues are
nothing more than virtual duplicates of unprotected catalogues,
which were selected and organized without originality and are
therefore unprotected under the Copyright Act of 1976. The key
case is Feist Publications against Rural Telephone 499 U.S. 340,
cited by Judge Martin in his decision of May 19, 1997, handed up
to the court this afternoon. The Supreme Court in Feist ruled
that originality is essential to warrant copyright protection and
that toil or sweat of brow expended in collecting information in
the public domain does not justify conferring copyright
protection on a compilation of facts. Rather protection attaches
only if the selection, coordination, or arrangement exhibit
originality.

     Notwithstanding its conclusion, the court emphasized that
"Original as the term is used in copyright means only that the
work was independently created by the author and that it
possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure,
the requisite level of creativity is extremely low. Even a slight
amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade
quite easily as they possess some creative spark...no matter how
crude, humble, or obvious."

     That is not the words of a district judge. That is the words
of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Feist, "The court
underscored that the required level of originality is minimal.
And most compilations, merely by exercising some independent
choice in the coordination, selection, or arrangement of data,
will pass the test. The telephone directory involved in Feist
failed because it was found to be completely devoid of
originality." Also the words of the United States Supreme Court.

     And the Second Circuit has said so as well in CCC
Information Services and other cases which I will put in the
written opinion. Bearing in mind the onerous burden facing a
movant on a Rule 50 motion and, conversely, the low threshold for
originality in copyright claims, the court rejects Maxi-Aids's
contention that ILA did not present sufficient evidence that
their 1985-1995 catalogues warranted copyright protection. There
is ample proof in the record to support the jury's specific
finding that "The Plaintiff ILA proved that it changed the
product listings from its non-copyrighted catalogues so that the
listings as changed in the copyrighted catalogues were removed
from the public domain and were original and protected."
(Question number one in the verdict sheet), and there is other
evidence which I'm not going into in the testimony that supports
that.

     In the Judge Martin case, my distinguished colleague tried
this as a bench trial. He decided as an issue of fact "if one
looks at each opinion as a whole, then it seems clear that the
changes made by West are trivial indeed." That was his finding of
fact.

     The jury in this case found otherwise, and in my view the
evidence supports it, which will be in the written opinion.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of
law with respect to the federal copyright infringement claim is
denied.

     As far as a defense on Laches is concerned, equitable
Doctrine of Laches, to prove this defense, a party must show
that, one, the plaintiff had knowledge of the infringing
activity. Two, the plaintiff inexcusably delayed taking action.
And, three, the defendant would be prejudiced if plaintiff
belatedly asserted its rights. That is from the Tri-Star Pictures
case.

     And there is a presumption of Laches that applies in a
trademark action if the plaintiff fails to bring suit within the
six-years statute of limitations applicable to state law fraud.
Once this presumption attaches, which it did here, the burden is
on the plaintiff to show why the Laches defense ought not to be
applied. So we look at each element.

     First, delay. The court finds that the profit reasons, while
they may not excuse the full extent of the delay, do excuse the
greater portion sufficient to justify the company's conduct.
Beginning in 1989, counsel for ILA began corresponding with Maxi-
Aids in an effort to get the company to cease copying its
catalogs. Sandler himself directly communicated with Elliot
Zaretsky to try and resolve the matter. When Maxi-Aids continued
copying ILA's catalogs, the plaintiffs complained about the
defendants' conduct to various government agencies, including the
Department of Veterans Affairs and two attorneys general. In the
court's view this is not a case where the plaintiff simply sat on
their hands for a nine-year period without making any effort to
advise the defendants of their concerns or to assert their
rights.

     Although the plaintiff certainly could have been more
aggressive, namely suing in advancing their claims of copyright
and trademark infringement, they did everything else. The court
views ILA's correspondence with Maxi-Aids and the various
government entities as justifiable efforts to resolve this matter
outside the context of litigation. Accordingly the court finds
that the delay in bringing suit was not unjustified.

     In any event delay will not itself bar the plaintiffs' suit.
In order to prevail on a defense of Laches, the court must find
that the defendants likely have been prejudiced by the
plaintiffs' unreasonable delay in bringing the action. Because
the presumption of prejudice is established by operation of time,
it is the plaintiffs' burden to make a showing that no prejudice
ensued.

     One form of prejudice is the decreased ability of the
defendants to vindicate themselves that results from the death of
witnesses or on account of fading memories or stale evidence. The
key crucial test of prejudice is that witnesses have died or
disappeared because of the delay. And that hinders the defense.
Here there is no claim that any key witnesses died or disappeared
during the interim. Moreover, in the court's view the defendants
do not appear to have suffered any decreased ability to vindicate
themselves due to the delay. While the defendants baldly assert
that they were "forced to try the case in the face of diminished
memories, loss of evidence, et cetera," the sole examples offered
by the defendants were Elliot Zaretsky's inability to recall his
source of ILA watches in 1986 and the defendants' inability to
produce some invoices from ten years ago and other unspecified
records, from the mid 1980's.

     In the context of a lengthy trial involving highly
sophisticated issues, where a mountain of evidence was produced
by both sides, the court finds that these isolated instances of
memory loss and lost documents do not warrant a finding of
prejudice. The crucial witnesses were alive, available, and able
to testify about the pertinent events and did testify.

     Maxi-Aids was able to produce the greater part of the
significant documentary evidence. Notably, Maxi-Aids prevailed on
the federal trade dress actions, the majority of the federal
trademark/service-mark claims, and the state law claim for
intentional interference with economic benefits.

     In sum, the isolated examples emphasized by the defendants
do not supply any basis for a finding of prejudice in the legal
sense.

     I'll discuss the other argument about prejudice, about the
earnings mounting dramatically, in the written opinion. Suffice
it to say the court declines to adopt this bizarre theory.
Accordingly the court finds that the defendants were not
prejudiced by the delay in bringing suit.

     The next element is the public interest. Even if it were to
find that the plaintiffs had delayed unreasonably in bringing
suit and that the defendants were prejudiced by this, it
nevertheless would decline to apply the Doctrine of Laches in
view of the public's interest at stake in this lawsuit.

     The products involved concern the health and safety of
visually impaired and physically disabled individuals and their
care-givers. It is difficult to conceive of a subject more worthy
of public concern and attention. In sum, the court declines to
apply the Doctrine of Laches.

     With respect to the statute of limitations, the plaintiffs
introduced evidence of at least five violations in each of the
five consecutive Maxi-Aids catalogues from 1986 through 1989 by
using ILA watches in its advertisements. Significantly, Defendant
Elliot Zaretsky admitted that he advertised, marketed, and sold
the watches bearing the ILA logo through 1990. Since there was
evidence of trademark violations in 1989 and 1990, within the
six-year period proceeding commencement of this lawsuit in 1995,
the bar imposed by the statute of limitations is inapplicable.

     I will get to the defendants' motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims arising under GBL 349 and 350 essentially in
the written opinion. The defendants do not ask for the judgment
as a matter of law, because as far as the court is able to
discern, the defendants did not specifically move with respect to
the GBL claims in their prior motion for judgment as a matter of
law and may not renew such a motion now.

     To grant a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, the court must
find that the verdict with respect to the GBL claims is
"seriously erroneous" or constitutes a "miscarriage of justice".
Here neither justification for a new trial is present.

     I go into at length why I believe that with regard to both
GBL claims under 349 for deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any business, and under 350, with regard to false
advertising in the conduct of any business.

     The defendants mount a two-pronged attack on the GBL claims.
First, the plaintiffs did not offer any evidence that any
customers were actually deceived. Second, the violations of GBL
were not "against the public interest." The plaintiffs, who
unfortunately do not offer a single case in support of their
position, contend in conclusory fashion that there was adequate
evidence on both fronts, since Maxi-Aids's descriptions of the
products at issue were patently false and since the public
interest was implicated in that the parties, consumers, are
disabled disadvantaged individuals.

     Contrary to the defendants' suggestion, the first element of
a GBL 349 and 350 claim, "that the act or practice was misleading
in a material respect," does not require proof in the form of
survey evidence, admissible market research, or consumer
testimony to demonstrate actual deception. As noted in the
practice commentaries to the statutory provisions, "GBL sections
349 and 350 contain no requirement that an injured party show
reasonable reliance on his erroneous statements otherwise
prohibited by the sections in order to obtain relief."

     In the court's view the evidence that was presented with
respect to this element of the claims, namely that Maxi-Aids's
advertisements of the watches and knives at issue were patently
false and admittedly so, supports the jury's finding. It was
enough that the plaintiffs' evidence demonstrated "that a
reasonable person would be likely to be misled by the material
rather than that the individual consumers actually were misled."

     The court also finds without merit Maxi-Aids's contention
that the GBL violations were not against the public interest. It
is clear and unrefuted that the customers at issue are among the
most vulnerable in our society: the blind, the elderly, the
physically disabled, and the infirm. In the court's view Maxi-
Aids's false, misleading advertisements of products directed at
this population constitutes "public interest" of the highest
order. Therefore, the defendants' motion for a new trial on the
GBL claims is denied in all respects.

     Next, the defendants move pursuant to Rule 59 for remittitur
of the jury award of $2,400,000.06 on the grounds that it is
excessive. Alternatively, they seek a new trial relevant to all
issues or as to damages alone. Briefly reiterated, to grant the
motion for a remittitur, the court must find that the damage
award was so excessive as to "shock the judicial conscience and
constitute a denial of justice." I am going to cite one case
because it was mine: Walz against the Town of Smithtown, 46 F.3d
162 170 (2d Cir.) cert denied, 115 S. Ct. 2557, and other cases,
including the most recent cases decided this year.

     Affording due deference to the jury's determination, the
court in its discretion declines to disturb the award since it
neither shocks the judicial conscience nor constitutes a denial
of justice.

     The award covered myriad trademark and copyright
infringements occurring over the span of many years, as well as
the defendants' deceptive practices and false advertising. In
this court's view there was ample evidence before the jury to
support this award. While the defendants expend considerable
effort urging this court to set aside this award and to undertake
"a detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages," in the
court's view such arguments are misplaced. The award is entitled
to great deference. It is not for this court to determine de novo
what it would have awarded had it been the fact-finder. Since the
monetary award is not conscience-shocking, it will not be
disturbed.

     The defendants seek a new trial on their counterclaim for
libel stemming from Sandler's letter dated January 17, 1994, to
Jernigan. In the letter which the Braille Monitor published,
Sandler accused the defendants of unethical business practices,
dishonesty, fraud, and related charges. Without speculating as to
the basis for the verdict, a reasonable jury could conclude,
based on the evidence presented and this court's charge, that
Sandler's remarks were not "defamatory," which is the question
they answered. The court instructed the jury as follows, in part:

     "In order to recover on the libel counterclaim, the
defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
statements in the letter by Plaintiff Sandler... were defamatory,
meaning that the statements had a tendency to expose the
defendants to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace or
discredit them in the conduct of their business or occupation...
the question for you to decide is whether the statements in the
published portions of the letter of the plaintiff, Sandler, were
defamatory... not every unpleasant or uncomplimentary statement
is defamatory." This is my charge to the jury.

     "A statement that is merely unpleasant, offensive, or
embarrassing or that hurts the defendants' feelings is not
necessarily defamatory. Because language often has different
meanings, the law imposes upon the defendants the burden of
proving that the statements about which they complain would in
fact be understood by the average person to be defamatory as I
have defined that term for you".

     Without invading the jury's deliberative process, in view of
the court's instruction, a fair reading of the record supports
the jury's finding that Sandler's remarks did not expose the
defendants to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or
otherwise were defamatory because his letter could have been
found to describe their conduct, or so the jury could have found.

     In other words Sandler's letter could--the jury could have
decided that Sandler's letter would not "lead the average person
in the community to form an evil or bad opinion of the defendants
under the circumstances of this case."

     The defendants' remaining contention--well, I'm denying the
motion for a new trial or in any respect to disturb the verdict
on the counterclaim for libel. The defendants' remaining
contentions are without merit. For all the foregoing reasons the
defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial,
and remittitur are all denied in their entirety.

     The plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of the $431,881.40 plus statutory interest, as the
prevailing party on their trademark claim, copyright claim, and
GBL claims, as set forth more fully below, or in the written
opinion, the court is unable to adequately determine the amount
of attorneys' fees to be awarded at this time due to several
deficiencies in the plaintiffs' fee request:

     First, the attorneys' time sheets do not differentiate
attorney hours devoted to their successful claims and those
claims which the jury rejected. I don't have to go through them
again.

     The plaintiffs complain that they are unable to distinguish
between attorney hours devoted to their successful and
unsuccessful claims, mainly because their time sheets do not
reflect the exact nature of the work performed.

     However, central to an application for attorney's fees is
the submission of time records reflecting the hours expended by
counsel in pursuing the successful claims of their client. In
order for a party to recover attorneys' fees, such time records
must be made contemporaneously with the associated work. It is
not necessary for the applicant to submit the actual diary
entries made by the attorneys at the time they performed the
work. Rather, reconstruction of such contemporaneous records on a
computer and billing based on these records is adequate, and I'm
leaving out the citations. Most of the cases were my cases, as a
matter of fact.

     What is important is that these records should identify for
each attorney the dates, the hours expended, and the nature of
the work done. The burden is on counsel to keep and present
records from which the court may determine the nature of the work
done, the need for it, and the amount of time reasonably
required. Where adequate contemporaneous records have not been
kept, the court should not award the full amount requested.

     In sum, it is the plaintiffs' burden of demonstrating that
the fee request relates to work performed on their prevailing
claims. The court declines to award plaintiffs' fees and costs
associated with the claims on which they did not prevail. Nor
will the court award attorneys' fees for defending the libel
counterclaim. There is no right to attorneys' fees for that. For
this reason the court will afford the plaintiffs' counsel another
final opportunity to review their records and determine whether
they adhere to their initial assessment that they are unable to
distinguish between time spent on the successful claims and hours
devoted to the unsuccessful ones. In the event they're unable to
do so, the court intends to substantially reduce the total fee
application by as much as one half, to reflect that the claims on
which the plaintiffs' lost and defense of the libel count are
claims which were a major part of their theory of this case.

     In this regard the court observes that the plaintiffs seek
$10,822 for work performed in connection with their unsuccessful
motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The court will not
award fees for unsuccessful applications. Accordingly such work
must be deleted in the renewed application.

     Second, the plaintiffs' counsel must recalculate their fee
request, reducing their hourly rates for a partner and associate
from $350 per hour for a partner and $175 dollars per hour for an
associate, respectively, to $225 per hour for a partner and $135
per hour for an associate, and that is the top fee I'm paying
ever. And that was in the Louis Yanno (ph) case only, not the
four other cases that at the Second Circuit affirmed at $200 an
hour. In the Louis Yanno case, where exceptional services were
rendered in a very difficult case, and I consider this a very
difficult case--it certainly was difficult for me, and I'm sure
it was difficult for all counsel.

     I address your attention to Louis Yanno against Olsten, 109
F.3d 111, where the Second Circuit affirmed the $225 an hour in a
very complicated employment--and successful--discrimination case,
where the plaintiffs' counsel, unhappy with my award of $225 an
hour and $135 per associate, made a separate appeal from the
liability part of the case and the award of damages, a separate
appeal on attorney's fees, and brought in professors from law
schools, and had amicus curiae, almost every bar association
saying that "My office is in Manhattan, prices are high, the
rents are high," and all these things, and "I should get
Manhattan prices." And the Second Circuit says, the case was
tried in the Eastern District of New York in Uniondale; we are
not going to get into Manhattan prices. So that was that.

     So for Mr. Dweck, $225 an hour; Mr. Hubell or an associate,
$135 an hour.

     Third, the plaintiffs' fee request includes hours devoted to
subjects which on their face bear no relation to this case. Such
extraneous matters include ILA's subsequently-filed RICO lawsuit
against the defendants and, oddly, "estate planning" for Marvin
Sandler. Of course the court is not going to award attorneys'
fees for these items. Accordingly the plaintiffs are directed to
resubmit their application deleting such items.

     For the reasons stated the court is unable to determine the
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. Accordingly the motion is
denied without prejudice and with leave to renew within ten days
of the date of this decision; no extension will be granted. This
motion--these motions were made months and months, ten months,
five months, six months, after the verdict. We are not going to
waste any more time. Ten days. The court observes that the
defendants offer numerous additional arguments against awarding
attorneys' fees, which will be addressed when the clarified
application is submitted.

     Since the defendants already have advised the court of their
objections to the fee request, they will not be required to file
additional opposition papers. Although they are free to do so, if
they do, it is ten days after they receive the plaintiffs'
additional submission.

     Finally, the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction
enjoining the defendants from committing any further violations
and/or infringements of plaintiffs' trademarks or copyrights,
tortious interference, or engaging in false or deceptive trade
practices, and for the preparation of a final judgment providing
for the "destruction and confiscation of all infringing catalogs
on the part of the defendant," we did not find any objection to
this aspect.

     Did you object to this, Mr. Mulholland?

     MR. MULHOLLAND: Absolutely.

     THE COURT: You did? In what part of your opposition did you
object?

     MR. MULHOLLAND: May I just have a moment?

     THE COURT: If you continue to object, I'm going to give you
an opportunity to object if you want to. I don't really find any
objection to that part of the...

     MR. MULHOLLAND: Your Honor, without finding the specific
point, I do recall in our papers we pointed out that the alleged
copying of catalogs had all been an event that flowed from the
original supposed copying of the 1985 catalog. We pointed out
that subsequently, in 1995, Maxi-Aids by then had completely
revamped its catalog. In fact, that revamping process started in
1993. At trial we were accused of copying the '95 catalog, and
plaintiff had conceded the copying had stopped by the time this
trial had started.

     THE COURT: I'm going to give you an opportunity to file an
opposition to this portion within ten days. Because I don't see
any opposition.

     MR. MULHOLLAND: We can do that more clearly then.

     THE COURT: Yes, more clearly. What I'm going to have, is
that you're going to file your opposition within ten days, Mr.
Mulholland. And ten days after that you're to submit a proposed
judgment, final judgment, a proposed injunctive order, for the
court to review, good Mr. Dweck.

     MR. DWECK: Is that an order or a judgment, your Honor?

     THE COURT: I guess it is a judgment. I want it to be part of
the other judgment. I want to see what it looks like first.

     MR. DWECK: So you want that separate?

     THE COURT: Just that separate section. In conclusion, having
reviewed the parties' submissions and oral argument, and for the
reasons stated orally and in the written opinion to be issued, it
is ordered that the defendants' motions pursuant to Rules 50 and
59 are denied.

     It is further ordered that the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and with leave to
renew within ten days from today, in keeping with the
declarations of the court. And as far as the plaintiffs' motion
for a permanent injunction and preparation of a final judgment
providing for this injunctive relief and for the destruction and
confiscation of all infringing catalogs, I'm going to wait to
receive the opposition from the defendant and then the proposed
portion of the final judgment having to do with injunctive
relief. We will issue a written opinion as soon as we can. Thank
you very much.
                           **********
     There you have the transcript of Judge Spatt's July 17
ruling. He has three final matters to decide now that his written
opinion has been circulated. At this writing (in mid-September)
he has not yet announced these decisions. The first is the amount
he will instruct Maxi-Aids to reimburse ILA for legal fees.
Dweck's firm recalculated the amount in accordance with the
judge's instructions but apparently still didn't get it right. So
the discussions continue.

     The second matter is the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent
injunction prohibiting the defendants from committing further
violations or infringements of ILA's trademarks or copyrights,
tortious interference, or engaging in false or deceptive trade
practices. The judge invited Mr. Dweck to write the language the
plaintiffs would like to see and Mr. Mulholland to suggest
modifications. Dweck's text listed officers and directors of
Maxi-Aids as well as all four members of the Zaretsky family by
name in the permanent injunction. Mulholland pointed out that
Elliot Zaretsky's deaf son Harold had not been found guilty of a
number of the charges by the jury, so he asked that Harold's
actual name be dropped from the list. Sandler reports that, since
Harold is both an officer and a director of Maxi-Aids, he
continues to be covered by the proposed injunction, so ILA has no
problem with Mulholland's suggested change. Judge Spatt, however,
has not yet indicated his decision.

     As for the confiscation and destruction of Maxi-Aids
catalogues, Marvin Sandler reports that Mitchel told the judge
that all the old catalogues had been destroyed and that Maxi-Aids
staff were now using only the 1998 catalogues, which do not
infringe. Mulholland, on the other hand, assured the judge that
all but about ten of the old catalogues will be destroyed. The
ten would be used for reference purposes when filling orders from
people using old catalogues.

     Sandler points out that, setting aside the difference in
verb tense ("had been" versus "will be") between the two
statements, the ten catalogues precisely demonstrate the problem.
Unless Maxi-Aids sets out to notify its customers that their old
catalogues must be returned, the infringing pictures and text
will continue to do damage for years to come. This dispute is
still to be resolved by the judge's order.

     In the meantime Mulholland has definitely been fired by
Zaretsky. At the July 17 hearing Mulholland was conducting
matters for the defendants, but the new firm of Bauer and
Schaffer was also represented. No announcement has yet been made
about whether or not Zaretsky intends to appeal the jury's
decision because all the loose ends must be tied up before an
appeal can be filed. But the very fact that a new firm has been
retained suggests that Elliot Zaretsky intends to appeal the
verdict. 

     The Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet announced
what it intends to do about continuing to accept bids from Maxi-
Aids in the wake of this case. No one at the VA is prepared to
make a public statement, but we understand that a decision is
expected soon.

     The mills of justice certainly do grind slowly. Ten months
have passed since a jury found that Maxi-Aids engaged in a number
of unfair and deceptive practices. Yet private and state agencies
continue to give them business. Low price appears to be the
explanation, but where and when will morality enter the equation?
We will keep you posted.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Michael Baillif]
           The Naked Truth about Benign Discrimination
                       by Michael Baillif
                           **********
     From the Editor: Michael Baillif is an attorney working in
New York City. Until recently he lived and worked in the nation's
capital, where anything can happen and eventually will. In the
following article he reflects on the significance of one of the
more bizarre incidents to occur recently on the diplomatic scene.
This is what he says:
                           **********
     Have you ever had a dream in which you found yourself in
public and, to your horror, realized that you didn't have on any
clothes? Believe it or not, a variation of this nightmare
actually happened to a man in Washington, D.C., early last
summer.

     In June the President of South Korea came to Washington to
meet with President Clinton. Among other festivities a state
dinner was held to celebrate the occasion. As the guests walked
through a receiving line shaking hands with President Clinton,
the unthinkable happened. One of the attendees, a renowned video
artist, who also happened to be disabled, stood up from his
wheelchair and, with the help of a walker, approached President
Clinton for a handshake. As he extended his hand, the man's pants
somehow became unfastened and fell down around his ankles. To
make matters worse for both the man and those in the audience, he
wasn't wearing any underwear!

     The next day the poor man's disaster was greeted with howls
of laughter on news shows and talk radio programs across the
country. After all, the image of someone's pants falling down as
he greets the President is something right out of a Marx Brothers
movie. Significantly, however, the laughter evoked by this
incident choked in the throats of many when they learned that the
man was disabled. MSNBC, for instance, refused to air the report
of the mishap, describing it as "an unfortunate incident with a
handicapped gentleman."

     This unwillingness to join in the merriment, however,
revealed a second naked truth, this time about the nature of
benign discrimination. With the best of intentions some in the
media denied the man the most basic aspect of equality: the right
to be laughed at when one is at the center of an absurd
situation. As Jane Austen so eloquently phrased it in Pride and
Prejudice, "For what do we live but to be made sport of by our
neighbors and to laugh at them in our turn?"

     Where a potentially humorous situation is attributable, not
to a person's disability or some other distinguishing
characteristic, but to a circumstance that could involve anyone,
laughter is the appropriate reaction. Indeed, to suppress mirth
in such a case is to build a protective wall around the member of
a minority group. While this wall may shield the member of the
minority from the few snickers that everyone occasionally merits,
it just as surely precludes the person from full acceptance as an
equal in the world we all inhabit.

     An important contrast to the concept exemplified by the man
and his fallen pants was the misuse of a particular
characteristic perpetrated in the Mr. Magoo movie. In Mr. Magoo
the attempted humor was specifically based on exploitation of
blindness. In an effort to gain chuckles, blindness was portrayed
in a way that was not only inaccurate but insulting and
ultimately harmful. The distorted image of blindness on which the
creators of Mr. Magoo sought to capitalize was, for the most
part, recognized as tasteless. It no longer tickled the funny
bone of a society in which the understanding that blindness does
not equate with incapacity is steadily advancing.

     In Mr. Magoo the subject of the humor was blindness. In the
case of the man and his fallen pants, however, the humor was
derived from an event that could have happened to anyone.
Coincidentally, it befell someone who was disabled.

     In this case the immediate and natural reaction is the
healthiest and most productive one. People should laugh and enjoy
the strange events that fate drops in their path.

     Ultimately, the extent to which a person who happens to be a
member of a minority group is subject to laughter for the right
reasons is one of the most accurate measures of equality. Once we
are successful in helping society understand why the incident
with the man and his falling pants is funny and why Mr. Magoo is
not, we will have taken one more step toward ending benign
discrimination. This reality is a basic truth that was revealed
when the man dropped his pants in President Clinton's receiving
line.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Homer Page]
              Page Sets Sights on County Treasurer
            Democrats Eye Only Elected Seat in County
                 Government Held by a Republican
               by Jason Gewirtz and Kristin Dizon
                           **********
     From the Editor: Homer Page is a longtime leader in the
National Federation of the Blind and an experienced politician.
He is about to take part in yet another election in Boulder,
Colorado. The following article giving the details appeared in
the June 11, 1998, Boulder Daily Camera.
                           **********
     Homer Page is challenging Republican incumbent Sandy Hume
for Boulder County Treasurer in the November election.

     Page, a Democrat, accepted the nomination Wednesday from a
Boulder County Democratic Party committee targeting vacant
government positions. While he has not officially announced his
candidacy, Page said he expects to shortly.

     "There are some serious reasons why we need to take back
this seat," Page said to a crowded, clapping audience at the
monthly meeting.

     He said Hume has been an inconsistent treasurer who has poor
relationships with the financial community, other elected
officials, and county government staff.

     Page, a former two-time Boulder City councilman and Boulder
County commissioner, recently dropped out of the crowded primary
race for the Second Congressional District seat vacated by U.S.
Representative David Skaggs.

     Page acknowledged that he previously had his sights set
higher than the treasurer post and asked himself whether he
really wanted the job when the party nominating committee came
calling.

     "In all honesty, six months ago I would have said no," Page
said.

     Now, he said, he is proud to be seeking the office.

     "What I really want is to be active in this community, to be
active in the political process, and to make a contribution," he
said.

     Democrats are keeping a close eye on the treasurer's
position because it is the only elected office in county
government held by a Republican.

     "This is going to be a tough year," Page added. "We're going
to be challenged up and down the ticket."

     Democratic party member Sam Forsyth said, "We have an
opportunity to elect only the second Democrat to the county
treasurer's office in over sixty years."

     Hume is a former county commissioner who also served eight
years in the state Senate and House of Representatives. He has
been treasurer since 1994, leaving his commissioner position to
seek the post.

     Hume, who announced his plans to run again in April, said he
assumed the Democrats would submit a challenger for his position
and had heard rumors of Page entering the race.

     "I know Homer well, and I'm sure we'll have an interesting
and honorable race," he said.
                           **********
                           **********
                    New Mexico School Update
                           **********
     From the Editor: For some time now we have been following
the situation at the New Mexico School for the Visually
Handicapped (NMSVH). (See the October, 1996, issue of the Braille
Monitor for details.) In May of this year the U.S. Justice
Department finally released its report on the school. It makes
discouraging, if not distressing, reading. In recent months some
hopeful signs have appeared. The Board of Regents is now
radically different from the one that looked the other way when
the worst of the abuses were taking place. Also, beginning with
the current academic year, Dr. Nell Carney, the former
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, has
taken over as superintendent at NMSVH. All this is good news, but
the new broom has a lot to sweep away. The following summary of
the Justice Department's report appeared in the June 24, 1998,
edition of the Albuquerque Journal. Here it is:
                           **********
             Feds Fault New Mexico School for Blind
              Students Not Taught Braille, Cane Use
                          by Rene Romo
                           **********
     The state's primary school for the blind has failed to teach
most of its students how to read Braille and walk with a cane and
lacks adequate mental health services, according to a report
issued recently by the U.S. Justice Department.

     The report is the first in-depth, independent analysis of
the Alamogordo school's teaching performance and provides "a sad
commentary on what's been going on over the last twenty years,"
said Joe Salazar, vice president of the Board of Regents for the
New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped.

     Salazar and Board of Regents president James Salas
acknowledged the school had problems but declined to release
details of planned corrective measures.

     They said the state Attorney General's Office, representing
the school, sent a proposal to the Justice Department on June 15
outlining a plan to remedy the alleged violations of students'
statutorily guaranteed rights.

     "Every area they pointed out where we were weak, we are
going to correct," Salazar said.

     A Justice Department spokesman was unable to respond Tuesday
to questions about the report.

     The Justice Department investigation stemmed from a 1996
civil suit filed against the school's regents and employees by
sixteen former students who alleged acts of physical and sexual
abuse by school staff and other students between 1973 and 1996.

     The students, who charged school administrators ignored
complaints and failed to protect students, settled their suit in
January. Terms of the settlement have not been released.

     According to the Justice investigation carried out by the
Civil Rights Division, only twelve of the sixty-five to seventy
students attending the New Mexico School for the Visually
Handicapped during the 1996-97 academic year could read Braille.
Sixteen students could not read at all.

     The school, at the time of an April, 1997, tour, had only a
part-time Braille teacher, and "many of the other classroom
teachers appear to consider Braille too difficult for their
students," who are of average or above average intelligence, the
report states.

     The majority of students were taught to read print, often
standard-size print, the report states. Those students include
legally blind students and those with degenerative eye disease
and who will eventually lose most or all of their sight.

     Of the twelve students said to read Braille, many who are
partially sighted read Braille with their eyes instead of using
their fingertips to decipher the raised printed code.

     The report said it was "unacceptable" that some visually
impaired students had to wait months to receive replacements when
they lost or damaged their eyeglasses.

     The school also failed to ensure that able-bodied students
were proficient in the use of a cane, the report states. Some
students told investigators they avoided using canes to avoid
public embarrassment. But the Justice report said the school
should "address such emotional and social concerns directly,
rather than permitting students to literally bump around in a
misplaced effort to conceal their disability."

     Arthur Schreiber, President of the New Mexico chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind, a private advocacy group, said
teaching Braille and other independent living skills such as
walking with a cane are the backbone of specialized instruction
for the blind.

     "I think they (NMSVH) are doing horribly," Schreiber said.
"They certainly have a big job in front of them."

     Albuquerque attorney Bruce Pasternack, who represented the
sixteen plaintiffs in the civil suit against the school, said the
Justice Department investigation confirmed his clients'
complaints of a lack of protection and educational deficiencies:
"The government corroborated that."

     The investigation, however, did not deal with allegations of
physical and sexual abuse.

     Despite the lawsuit, the school still had an inadequate
abuse-reporting system in place in late 1997, according to the
Justice Department. School policy required employees to report
suspected abuse, but there was no standard reporting form. And
there was no mechanism for students or parents to report abuse or
neglect, the report states.

     "Although our evaluation revealed that the school has
significant strengths on which to build, it revealed violations
of students' constitutional and federal statutory rights," said
the report, signed by Bill Lann Lee, acting assistant attorney
general of the Civil Rights Division.

     The report also states the school lacked adequate mental
health resources, mainly because mental health counseling
services are provided by unlicensed or unqualified staff.

     In one case a student's self-mutilation behavior was
addressed not with treatment but a warning he would be punished
if the behavior continued. In another case a boy with a history
of suicidal gestures was turned down when he requested more than
monthly counseling sessions.

     Schreiber said the report is especially galling since the
school, a land-grant institution, is one of the best endowed
institutions for the blind in the country.

     The school had an annual budget of more than $7 million in
1997, spending the equivalent of $105,000 for each of the seventy
students living on campus.

     At the time of the April, 1997, tour of the campus, the
school employed 160 full- and part-time staff members, of whom
"only twenty-one provided education and habilitation services
directly to students," the report said.

     Former student Jennifer Switzer-Hensley, a 1977 graduate of
the Alomogordo school, said she was not surprised by the report.
She didn't learn Braille or how to use a cane until two years ago
through a state Commission for the Blind service.

     "If you had any sight at all, we weren't taught mobility,
even if your condition would deteriorate," Switzer-Hensley said.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Seville Allen]
          Different Roads: The NFB Makes the Difference
                        by Seville Allen
                           **********
     From the Editor: The following article first appeared in the
Spring, 1998, issue of the Vigilant, the publication of the
National Federation of the Blind of Virginia. Seville Allen edits
that publication. She is a longtime Federationist and a leader of
the NFB of Virginia. This is what she says:
                           **********
     We hadn't seen each other since that day in June, 1959, when
we graduated from the eighth grade. We had been best friends from
the time we entered kindergarten until we returned to school in
the fall of 1956 to begin the sixth grade. I returned as a total,
as those with no sight were known at the residential school for
the blind. My best friend was partially sighted, and she
continued playing with the sighted kids. Our friendship faded,
and by the time we graduated from eighth grade, we hardly saw
each other at all. That was thirty-nine years ago.

     Last spring our paths crossed electronically when I answered
an e-mail she sent to a listserv requesting contact with
graduates of the school for the blind we had both attended. We
discovered that during the thirty-eight years since our eighth
grade graduation our lives had taken very different roads. She
attended a public high school in her home town. I completed my
secondary education at the school for the blind. She married and
became a parent, raising three children. I became a clinical
social worker, then a career civil servant working as a federal
employee.

     My former playmate was not a Federationist, but she arranged
to meet me at our 1997 convention in New Orleans so we could meet
again in person. When the time came to meet her, I was a little
anxious since all our contact had been by electronic mail. We had
not spoken at all. As it turned out, my anxiety was unnecessary.
She greeted me enthusiastically when I knocked on her door at the
hotel.

     Since we've met in person, we've spent many hours getting to
know each other again. Her voice and personality are much as I
remember. We are both avid readers, study history, and enjoy
traveling. While our lives have been very different, we still
have a lot in common, just as we did as children. The biggest
difference I see between us now is our attitude about our
blindness. Blindness has kept her from reaching her full
potential. She tells me how difficult it is to do things because
of her low vision or, as she says, "Because I can't see very
well." But more than that she continuously marvels at what I do
in spite of my total blindness. I can illustrate the difference
in our approach to blindness with an incident that happened when
we visited in New Orleans.

     She and her husband had gone to a small, inexpensive
restaurant for breakfast. She told me about the wonderful
pancakes, and I asked how to get there. She began explaining
where the restaurant was located, then hesitated. "Well," she
said "you better have a sighted person go with you because you
have to cross a street."

     I joined the National Federation of the Blind about twenty-
four years ago, and that changed my life. Perhaps had I not
become a part of our Federation family and learned that blindness
is an inconvenient characteristic, I too would have believed I
needed a sighted guide to take me to that pancake restaurant.

     I realized fully that our different approaches to blindness
result from my involvement with the NFB when we recently met for
lunch. I was visiting her city on a job-related assignment. My
rediscovered childhood friend asked how I travel to strange
cities on my own without fear and with no eyesight. I heard
myself telling her that the National Federation of the Blind has
made the difference. I told her that, until I met the Federation,
I had assumed there were many things I just wouldn't do, but for
me that is all different now. She was quiet for a moment then
told me that, when she was in New Orleans last summer, she was
overwhelmed by watching blind people running the convention.

     That experience has helped her begin to re-examine her own
situation. I'll continue to encourage her through my words and
more through my actions, and perhaps some day she too will be a
Federationist. It's never too late to put blindness in its proper
perspective, as one more characteristic that makes us who we are
just as do our height, gender, and temperament.
                           **********
                           **********
                     Taking Out the Garbage
                      by Kathy McGillivray
                           **********
     From the Editor: The following article first appeared in the
Spring, 1998, issue of the Minnesota Bulletin, a publication of
the NFB of Minnesota. Kathy McGillivray is a Disability
Specialist in the Disability Services department at the
University of Minnesota. As Kathy's experience shows, NFB
philosophy and self-confidence come to a person in varied and
interesting ways. This is what she says:
                           **********
     The day had finally arrived. The last box had been hauled
away from the apartment where I had lived for the past five
years. I was excited. Finally I had a place of my own. No more
paying rent. No more repeated calls to the caretaker to beg him
to fix my sink. I was free at last. I had just moved into my
newly-purchased condominium and was happy to have more space and
to live in a quieter neighborhood.

     Overall, the move had gone relatively smoothly. In fact,
this was the easiest move I could ever remember. Now that all ten
of my volunteer moving crew had left, I decided it was time to
take out some garbage. We had already unpacked some of my boxes,
and they were neatly stacked near the door. I decided it was time
to get rid of them before the pile became too large.

     I remember that, when I had first looked at the house, one
of the other owners had warned me that the dumpster would be very
difficult for me to find. She said I would probably need some
help with it. She let me know about another blind person who had
wandered several blocks looking for it. I told her that I
appreciated her concern, but I would do just fine.

     Hoisting my boxes onto my shoulder, I made my way down the
back stairs and out to the parking lot. A sighted friend had
informed me that I could go out and walk straight ahead for a few
yards, take a left and go about twice as far again, and I would
be at the dumpster.

     I tried following these directions, but alas, no dumpster. I
worked my way around several cars in the parking lot and searched
for the dumpster but was unable to find it. Within a few minutes
a woman came out and showed me where it was. I thanked her
politely but inwardly felt humiliated, frustrated, and even a bit
angry. It was just not fair. I had just bought my own place,
organized the move, and now I could not seem even to take out my
own garbage.

     A few days later I invited a friend to my house. My pile of
boxes had grown rather large, and there were several bags of
trash that needed to be taken out. I asked my friend for some
assistance since there was so much to haul. At this point there
was a lot of snow in the back of the building, and many cars were
parked there. My friend commented, "This is really going to be
hard for you to find. There are really no landmarks; you just
have to find your way through open space." She offered several
suggestions for ways to locate the dumpster. I tried them later
that week and was not very successful.

     The reader of this account might be wondering why this was
such a difficult task for me. The dumpsters are located across an
alley, where many cars are parked, and the snow is not shoveled
very well in the winter.

     Several days later I asked the president of the condominium
association whether it would be possible to move the dumpsters
closer to the building. She said no.

     Finally, I decided that enough was enough. I was going to
find a way to locate these dumpsters, no matter how long it took.
I grabbed my trash and headed outside.

     This time I really made an effort to notice my surroundings
and changes in the terrain as I moved closer to the dumpsters.
Upon finding them, I took time to look around the whole area. I
noticed that there was a garage within several feet of the
dumpsters. I had also noted a fence and several trees along my
path. As I returned to my house, I wondered why nobody had
pointed out these environmental cues to me, especially the
garage. In a way I was glad they hadn't because it gave me the
opportunity to discover them on my own.

     By now, as you can probably guess, taking out the trash at
my new place is a routine task, and I don't even think about it.
While this was a relatively small incident in my life, it made me
think about some garbage we blind people can collect in our
attitudes if we are not careful.

     One of the biggest pieces of garbage we can collect is the
idea that sighted people have more information about the
environment than blind people do and that they know best what we
can do and how we should do it. While sighted people can provide
valuable information, they do not necessarily have all the
information. As Federationists know, blind people are often the
best teachers of other blind people.

     A second piece of garbage we need to take out of our lives
is excessive anger and frustration. Whether we are blind or
sighted, if we are honest with ourselves, we all experience
frustration in our lives to one degree or another. Anger and
frustration can be our friends if they move us to action. They
can sound an alarm that calls us to wake up and make a change in
our lives. At a certain level the NFB came into existence because
of positive anger. People were angry about the lack of
opportunities for blind people and the negative stereotypes
society often has about us, so they did something about it. On
the other hand, anger becomes an enemy when it paralyzes us and
saps us of the creative energy we need to solve problems in our
lives.

     The third piece of garbage that needs to be disposed of is
plain, old-fashioned laziness. If you're like me, you prefer
things to be easy rather than hard. Unfortunately, much of life
is not easy. I think we all know several blind people who would
rather have things done for them than learn the alternative
techniques that would enable them to do things themselves. I fear
that this attitude will not pay off in the end.

     Just as I found a way to get my trash to the dumpster, all
of us need to find ways to get rid of the garbage that collects
in our lives. Through the work of the National Federation of the
Blind, we can recognize that garbage and put it where it belongs.
                           **********
                           **********
                             Recipes
                           **********
     From the Editor: This month's recipes have been provided by
members of the NFB's Public Employees Division.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Ellen Paxson]
                            Spareribs
                         by Ellen Paxson
                           **********
     Ellen Paxson works as a customer service representative for
the Social Security Administration in Stockton, California.
                           **********
Ingredients:
1 slab pork spareribs
1 bottle barbecue sauce

     Method: Bake the ribs on a rack in a roasting pan at 350
degrees for one hour. Remove from oven, cut ribs into serving-
size pieces, and smother with barbecue sauce. Return to oven and
cook for another hour.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Annette Anderson]
                        Green Bean Salad
                       by Annette Anderson
                           **********
     Annette Anderson is the Secretary of the National Federation
of the Blind's Public Employees Division and a member of the
Board of Directors of the Ohio affiliate. She is employed as an
investigator for the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
                           **********
Ingredients:
1 pound fresh or frozen green beans
3-1/2 tablespoons olive oil
2-1/2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
2 tablespoons dried dill weed
3 tablespoons slivered red onion
1/3 cup crumbled feta cheese
Salt and black pepper to taste
                           **********
     Method: Steam green beans until almost tender. Rinse in cold
water, drain, and pat dry. Combine olive oil, lemon juice, dill
weed, and onions. Add beans and black pepper. Before serving, add
feta cheese, toss, and mix well, adding salt if needed. Serve at
room temperature.
                           **********
                           **********
                           Jell-O Cake
                       by Annette Anderson
Ingredients:
4 small packages assorted Jell-O
1 small package raspberry Jell-O
2 cups unsweetened pineapple juice
1 tablespoon sugar
1 pint heavy cream
Ginger snaps

     Method: In four pans prepare the assorted packages of Jell-O
according to package directions. When Jell-O is firm, cut each
batch into cubes, place them all in a bowl, and refrigerate. In a
saucepan combine pineapple juice, sugar, and raspberry Jell-O and
stir over medium heat until the Jell-O dissolves. Set mixture
aside to cool. When the mixture is the consistency of whipping
cream, whip the heavy cream, fold it into the raspberry mixture,
and fold the combined mixture into the assorted Jell-O cubes.
Line a large shallow pan with whole ginger snaps, spoon Jell-O
mixture over top, refrigerate for four hours, and serve.
                           **********
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: John Halverson]
                           Spinach Dip
                        by John Halverson
                           **********
     Dr. John Halverson is the president of the Public Employees
Division and a longtime leader in the NFB. He is the Regional
Manager, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Region VII, located in Kansas City, Missouri.
                           **********
Ingredients:
1 pound mild Mexican Velveeta cheese with jalapeno peppers
1 large jar picante sauce, medium
1 10-ounce package frozen chopped spinach
1 4-ounce can green chilies
                           **********
     Method: In a large bowl microwave spinach and break into
small pieces with a fork. Add picante sauce and chilies
(including liquid) and microwave for two minutes more. Cube the
cheese, add to mixture, and return to microwave for four minutes
or until cheese is completely melted. Mix thoroughly and serve
with blue corn chips. To increase the heat, substitute hotter
picante sauce or hotter cheese.
                           **********
                           **********
                    Margaritas by the Pitcher
                        by John Halverson
                           **********
     John points out that these are a great accompaniment to the
chips and spinach dip in the previous recipe.
                           **********
Ingredients:
12 ounces frozen limeade concentrate
3 limeade cans water
Tequila
Triple sec
                           **********
     Method: In a large pitcher place the frozen limeade and
three cans of water. Using the limeade can as a measure, pour it
two-thirds full (eight ounces) with tequila. Complete filling the
can with four ounces triple sec and pour into pitcher. Mix
thoroughly, pour over ice, and enjoy!
                           **********
                           **********
                        Potato Casserole
                        by John Halverson
                           **********
Ingredients:
2 packages frozen hash brown potatoes
1/2 cup melted butter
1/4 cup chopped onion
1 cup cream of chicken soup
1 pint sour cream
10 ounces grated cheddar cheese
Bread crumbs
                           **********
     Method: Thaw potatoes for forty-five minutes before using.
Combine all ingredients except bread crumbs in a greased 9-by-13-
by-2-inch pan and sprinkle with bread crumbs. Bake one hour at
350.
                           **********
                           **********
                         Applesauce Cake
                        by John Halverson
                           **********
Ingredients:
3 cups unsweetened applesauce
1 cup brown sugar
2 cups white sugar
1/2 cup butter or margarine
1/2 cup cooking oil
1 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup raisins, optional
1 cup nuts, optional
6 cups flour
3 teaspoons baking soda
                           **********
     Method: Mix all ingredients thoroughly and pour into greased
and floured baking pan of choice. Bake at 350 degrees for 45
minutes or until a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.
                           **********
                              Glaze
                           **********
Ingredients
2 tablespoons brown sugar
2 tablespoons cornstarch
2 tablespoons water
                           **********
     Method: In a small saucepan mix all ingredients; boil,
stirring for two minutes. Remove from heat and, when cool, pour
over cake.
                           **********
                           **********
                       Monitor Miniatures

News from the Technology World:
     We received the following press release shortly before the
National Convention. It is self-explanatory:
                           **********
                  Blazie Engineering to Acquire
          Telesensory's Computer Access Products Group
                           **********
     Forest Hill, MD and Sunnyvale, CA--June 18, 1998--Blazie
Engineering and Telesensory Corporation jointly announced the
planned acquisition by Blazie Engineering of Telesensory
Corporation's Computer Access Products (CAP) group. This product
group includes the PowerBraille family of refreshable Braille
displays and distribution of related hardware and software
products. The transaction is scheduled to close in July, 1998.

     Both companies are major developers, manufacturers, and
distributors of assistive and adaptive devices for people who are
visually impaired around the world. This transaction will provide
a win-win situation for the companies and their customers. Deane
Blazie, President and founder of Blazie Engineering stated that
this "represents an outstanding opportunity for our company to
rapidly expand its very successful line of Braille equipment by
adding the PowerBraille family of Braille displays." Blazie
Engineering will continue its focus on providing state-of-the-art
Braille equipment to the worldwide blind community, in addition
to improving tactile access to the Graphical User Interface of
the twenty-first century.

     This transaction will also allow Telesensory to centralize
its efforts on its core business. Larry Israel, Telesensory's
chairman, president, and chief executive officer, stated that
this will allow the company to penetrate other under-served
markets with their Video Magnifier and OCR Reading Machines.
These are especially popular among the older population still
eager to preserve an independent and active life style.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Denise Mackenstadt]
Elected:
     We recently learned that Denise Mackenstadt, one of the
leaders of the parents division and the Washington State
affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, was elected to
Chair the Board of Trustees of the Washington State School for
the Blind. Nine trustees are appointed by the Governor. Denise
represents the First Congressional District, north and east of
Seattle. She has been a member of the board for some time, and we
are certain she will do an excellent job as its leader.
                           **********
In the Spirit of the Season:
     The following tidbit was published in the October, 1997,
issue of SB News, an internal industry publication of SmithKline
Beecham. The feature column was titled, "As I See It," and the
subheading read, "What was your best Halloween costume?"

     Patrick Barrett, a Year 2000 compliance specialist with
Diversified Pharmaceutical Services and an active member of the
NFB of Minnesota, said:

     "My best costume was a talking book for the blind. My wife
and I are blind and listen to talking books on cassette tapes. I
cut holes in a long, rectangular box for my arms and legs, as
well as for the cogs of the tape. I affixed print and Braille
labels and played the tape that matched the label on a battery-
powered tape player, which I held inside the box. I won first
prize at a local eatery."
                           **********
New Chapter:
     On Tuesday, March 24, 1998, the fifty-eighth chapter of the
NFB of South Carolina was organized in Calhoun County, the last
county without an NFB chapter. Now there is no blind South
Carolinian anywhere in the state who is more than a few miles
from a Federation chapter. The new officers are Irene Taylor,
President; Kimberly King, Vice President; and Ann McCabe,
Secretary/Treasurer. Congratulations to this new chapter and to
the NFB of South Carolina.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Arthur Segal, December 10, 1927, to August 25,
1998]
In Memoriam:
     Sharon Maneki, President of the NFB of Maryland, recently
notified us of the death of our longtime brother and colleague,
Arthur Segal. This is what she wrote:

     I am sorry to report the death of Arthur Segal on Tuesday,
August 25, 1998. Arthur was a member of the NFB for fifty-two
years, a most unusual record. Arthur was not just a member; he
was an activist. He was the president of the Merchants Division
for many years and held numerous offices, including president in
the NFB of Pennsylvania.

     Throughout his life Arthur had numerous careers. He spread
Federation philosophy in all of them. As a rehabilitation
counselor he introduced many Pennsylvanians to the Federation. As
a businessman in the Vending Program he not only encouraged other
vendors to join the Federation but also initiated a work study
program for the students at his alma mater, the Overbrook School
for the Blind. In Maryland Arthur worked for Baltimore City as
the Mayor's ADA coordinator and served on many task forces to
promote better access for the blind.

     Arthur understood that the Federation meant friendship and
fellowship. He used his art of gourmet cooking not only to
entertain but to spread confidence and hope to other blind
people. He loved children and for many years delighted in playing
Santa Claus at the Baltimore Chapter Christmas parties. One of
Arthur's jobs at NFB of Maryland conventions was to organize the
auction to raise money for the tenBroek Memorial Fund. He made
sure that we always managed to meet the pledge that we had made
at our National Convention. Arthur's spirit will remain with us,
especially when we listen to the recording of his singing "The
Blind Workshop Blues."

     It was most appropriate for Arthur's memorial service to
take place at the National Center for the Blind. We will miss
Arthur. His dedication, loyalty, and love of our movement will
continue to be an inspiration to all who knew him.
                           **********
Correspondence Wanted:
     Edgar Sammons would like to correspond in Braille with
anybody from anywhere in the country. He would prefer to
correspond with people who are forty years old or more, but if
younger people want to write to him, he will appreciate it.
Monitor readers may remember that one of his letters was quoted
in a banquet speech some years ago. Contact him at 2365 Cold
Springs Road, Mountain City, Tennessee 37683.
                           **********
Elected:
     At its April 8, 1998, chapter meeting, the Potomac Chapter
of the NFB of Virginia elected the following officers: Larry
Povinelli, President; Seville Allen, First Vice President; Robert
McDonald, Second Vice President; Bob Hartt, Treasurer; Cathy
Schroeder, Recording Secretary; Carol Cooper, Corresponding
Secretary; and Melissa Resnick, Nancy Yeager, and Louise Ruhf,
Board Members.
                           **********
For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Completely reconditioned Perkins Braille writer, $350.
Trade-in accepted. Payment plan is negotiable. Call Nino Pacini
evenings or weekends at (313) 885-7330.
                           **********
Wanted:
     Jiffy Slate for 3-by-5-inch index cards. Call Nino Pacini
evenings or weekends at (313) 885-7330.
                           **********
Alive and Well in Rochester, New York:
     The July issue of the Braille Monitor carried a miniature on
page 509, which inquired about the whereabouts of the National
Braille Association. The writer thought perhaps the NBA had
either moved or closed. Almost immediately we received two
responses--one saying that the agency had closed; the other
assuring us that it had not and that the Brailler jewelry was
still available. Since the second letter was from the NBA
executive director, we pass along its contact information. The
National Braille Association is located at 3 Townline Circle,
Rochester, New York 14623-2513, (716) 427-8260, fax (716) 427-
0263, e-mail <nbaoffice@compuserve.com>, Web site
<http://members.aol.com/nbaoffice/index.htm>.

     The prices of Perkins Brailler jewelry are pins, $49, and
charms, $45. Checks, money orders, Visa, and MasterCard are
accepted.
                           **********
Fortune Cookies for Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Lucky Touch Fortune Cookie Company is a student-operated
business at the California School for the Blind that sells giant
fortune cookies (about six inches by five inches by four inches)
with combined large print and Braille fortunes. The standard
cookies sell for 40 cents each and the large ones for $6 each.
Students can also put in customized fortunes. Chocolate-dipped
fortune cookies are also available. For more information please
contact Judith Lesner, Advisor, (510) 794-3800, extension 300, or
e-mail to <Jlesner@supreme.cde.ca.gov>.
                           **********
Braille Transcription of the Koran Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The Arizona Instructional Resource Center at the Foundation
for Blind Children in Phoenix announces the completion of a
Braille transcription of the English Translation of the Holy
Koran. The Braille copy is available for sale in seven volumes.
For more information or to purchase, please call the AIRC at
(602) 331-1470.
                           **********
Jett Enterprises Catalog Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Jett Enterprises announces that its 1998 "No Frills, Just
Priced Right" catalog is available as of September. It is packed
with all-occasion gifts, talking products, and specialty items
for guide dogs and for everyday living. Call (760) 778-8280 for a
free cassette or a 3.5-inch disk. If you have previously received
a catalog on disk, return it and have the new catalog copied to
it. Jett Enterprises will return it at no charge. They do not
ship outside the United States. Send your request to Jett
Enterprises, 3140 Cambridge Court, Palm Springs, California
92264. Visit the Web site at <www.onisland.com/jett>
                           **********
Elected:
     The Jackson Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of Mississippi elected the following officers for 1998: Sam
Gleese, President; Alfred Hudson, First Vice President; Sarah
White, Second Vice President; Deloris Watkins, Secretary; James
Prince, Treasurer; and Lorraine Williams and John Hawkins,
members of the Board of Directors.
                           **********
For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Jumbo Brailler, $450, includes shipping. Brailler just came
from Howe Press, so it should be in tip-top shape.

     Braille 'n Speak 640 with 1996 update. No flash memory,
asking $850, including shipping, cable, carrying case, and
adapter.

     DECtalk Express (external), brand new, in box, never opened.
Asking $950, including shipping.

     Talking adding machine from Science Products for the Blind.
Works fine. Instruction tape with it. Asking $240, including
shipping.

     One CD called, "AM Gold 1970," $13 plus $3 shipping. If
interested in any of the above, call Isaac at (617) 247-0026.
                           **********
Elected:
     The Hazelhurst Chapter of the NFB of Mississippi elected the
following officers for this year: Wade Branum, President; Frank
McGowan, First Vice President; Prentice Horton, Second Vice
President; James Lockett, Secretary; Tina Branum, Treasurer; and
Directors, Richard Zinzel and Dale Landry.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Paul and Bernadette Dressell]
Braillewriter Cleaning and Repair Service:
     Paul Dressell, a longtime NFB leader in Ohio, asked us to
carry the following announcement:

     Bernadette Dressell, who has been cleaning and repairing
Perkins Braillers since January, 1998, has been trained and
certified by Howe Press, where Perkins Braillewriters are
manufactured. She now has all parts in stock, and she can
normally guarantee a two-week turnaround. Please call or write
for price quotes to Bernadette Dressell, 2714 Ruberg Avenue,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-8118, (513) 481-7662.
                           **********
Dolphin Computer Access Now in U.S.:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Dolphin Computer Access is pleased to announce the opening
of its U.S. office in San Mateo, California. From this office
customers will be able to purchase and receive support directly
on Dolphin's full range of Windows 95, 98, and NT assistive-
technology products. Contact Dolphin Computer Access, LLC, 100
South Ellsworth Avenue, 4th Floor, San Mateo, California 94401,
sales (650) 348-7401, support (650) 348-7402, fax (650) 348-7403,
Web site: <http://www.dolphinusa.com>.
                           **********
For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Reading Edge book, newspaper, magazine, and letter, portable
reading machine, never used, in shipping container with latest
upgrade and documentation manual, audio instruction cassette
manual with Braille labels. Asking $2,935. Contact Lyndon at
(561) 585-7952 or <56832@bellsouth.net>.
                           **********
Correction:
     In a recent issue we printed a notice announcing the
availability of the new catalog from Access USA, but the fax
number was listed instead of the voice line. To receive a
catalog, call (800) 263-2750, e-mail <accusa@kos.net>.
                           **********
Wisconsin Fund-Raiser:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The NFB of Wisconsin is currently raising funds by selling
bean bag key rings. As single items they will sell for $3 each.
There are two types, zoo animals or puppies. If you buy one of
each, your total cost for the two is $5. (Add $1 for postage to
all orders for one or two.) Contact Julie Vogt, (715) 395-0049 or
cell phone (218) 343-8950. Make checks payable to NFB of
Wisconsin and send with your order to Julie Vogt, 2620 Tower
Avenue, Apartment 6, Superior, Wisconsin 54880. 
                           **********
Position Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The Clovernook Center for the Blind seeks to fill the
position of rehabilitation teacher. The successful candidate, who
will report to the supervisor of programming, will provide
assessment, instruction, and evaluation of personal management,
home management, communication, and education skills to people
who are visually impaired. The job requirements include
graduation from an accredited college or university with a degree
in rehabilitation teaching, certified by AER in rehabilitation
teaching (or AER certifiable); preferred experience with
population who are blind and multi-disabled; ability to work
cooperatively with others toward the promotion of the optimal
independence of all persons regardless of disability; work
flexible hours as needed; pre-employment drug screening and
background check as required by Clovernook Center; a post-offer,
pre-employment doctor's statement indicating the applicant is 
free of communicable disease and able to perform the job duties;
and successful completion and maintenance of OD/MRDD approved CPR
and first aid training. 

     For more information contact Michael Walsh, VP Human
Resources, Clovernook Center, 7000 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45231-5240, (513) 522-3860, Internet address,
<http://www.clovernook.org>.
                           **********
New Product Release:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Full Life Products introduces the only truly affordable
Talking Caller ID. CIDney Model 500 costs $39.99 (plus shipping
and handling). This unit will speak the incoming caller's 10-
digit phone number between the first and second ring. If the
incoming caller's number is blocked or unidentifiable, it will
announce "number blocked" or "number unknown." CIDney 500 stores
the last ten calls and speaks them back to you upon command
(including the day and date of the call). The unit's voice has a
mute and three volume settings. About the size of a deck of
cards, the Model 500 is easy to use and takes seconds to plug in.
Contact Full Life Products, P.O. Box 490 Mirror Lake, New
Hampshire 03853, or call toll free (800) 400-1540, Web site:
<www.superproducts.com>.
                           **********
For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     AST 486DX 266 computer and keyboard, SVGA monochrome
monitor, Artic Transport speech synthesizer, and HP Arkenstone
scanner. Entire system fully compatible, ready to run. Asking
$1,600 (negotiable). Call Marion Lanham, (410) 256-4843 (home) or
(410) 879-8920, extension 262 (office).
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Ted Henter]
Ted Henter Honored:
     Henter-Joyce, Inc., was named the St. Petersburg Area
Chamber of Commerce Small Business of the Year in category II (25
to 100 employees) during a ceremony at the St. Petersburg
Coliseum June 4, 1998. 

     The award was accepted by Henter-Joyce President Ted Henter
and CEO Mel Henter. Henter-Joyce will now be entered in the state
of Florida small business competition.

     Here is the text of the award:
                           **********
                Evan Kemp Entrepreneurship Award
               President's Committee on Employment
                   Of People with Disabilities
                           recognizes
                       Theodore C. Henter
            For displaying exemplary skills, energy,
          Leadership, initiative, and courage necessary
              To establish and create a successful
             Business venture in the private sector
                          June 1, 1998
                        Washington, D.C.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dr. Richard Umsted]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dr. Louis Tutt]
Honored or Something:
     Occasionally one reads a piece of information which at first
glance is shocking but after a bit of reflection seems dismally
appropriate. The following announcement appeared in the Spring
issue of the quarterly newsletter of the Division on Visual
Impairments (DVI) of the Council for Exceptional Children. Bear
in mind that Richard Umsted was the superintendent of the
Illinois School for the Visually Impaired who left under a cloud
after a number of students were physically and sexually attacked
by other students and, according to several parents, by staff
members, and efforts were made to cover up the problems. Lou
Tutt, who presented the award, is well known for his adherence to
the National Accreditation Council and his dislike of the
National Federation of the Blind. Despite what the following text
says, to the best of our knowledge, Dr. Tutt continues to be the
superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind. It is clear
from what follows that we don't all understand the concept of
advocacy the same way. Here is the notice:
                           **********
     Richard Umsted was the recipient of the Exemplary Advocate
Award. The award was presented by Lou Tutt, past school for the
blind superintendent, principal, O&M instructor, teacher, DVI
president twenty-two years ago, and past president of AEVH. Lou
suggested that the "U" in Umsted is for Umsted, "M" is for man,
"S" is for sensitivity, "T" is for together, "E" is for
excellence, and "D" is for drive. A resolution of Dick's credits
was read. Dick accepted and thanked all for recognizing his
advocacy and especially thanked his family, who have supported
him. He stated that faith, family, and friends have made it all
possible.
                           **********
A Different Kind of Book Depository:
     Peter Donahue recently sent us the following announcement:
     The International Braille Research Center (IBRC), an
organization supported by the National Federation of the Blind
over the years, announces plans to construct a new Internet
Resource for Braille users. During the coming year the IBRC plans
to build an online Braille Book Depository, which will contain
material in Grade II Braille. These materials can be read online,
downloaded and produced in hard-copy Braille, or read with a
Braille-aware device such as a paperless Braille display or
Braille notetaker. Titles may also be read using speech. This
resource will supplement other collections of online Braille
materials such as that being established by the National Library
Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS). The NLS
beta tested this concept earlier this year and plans to expand
its offerings. During the first year many of our selections will
be literary titles, but we also plan to add specialty materials
as time and resources permit. To assist in the development of
this resource, we need the following types of assistance.
                           **********
* Translators:
     Books, magazines, and other types of information will be
gathered from Internet sites such as Project Gutenberg. These
will be translated into electronic Grade II Braille. Those
wishing to help with translation will be sent titles by snail
mail or e-mail and will be expected to return the translations
the same way. These titles will then be placed in the depository.
To volunteer to translate materials, contact Peter Donahue,
Project Coordinator and Webmaster for the Braille Book Depository
at 100 Lorenz Road, Apartment 1205, San Antonio, Texas 78209,
Phone: (210) 826-9579,e-mail: <pdonahue@texas.net>. Let us know
what types of material you like to read so we can send you books
that will be of interest to you. This will also help us develop a
cross-section of materials of interest to blind readers the world
over. Please indicate whether you prefer to receive material for
translation by e-mail or snail mail.
                           **********
* Sources of material in Grade II format:
     We believe that some material already exists in Grade II
format, which we would like to include in the depository. If you
know of such material, please let us know where it can be found
so we can download it for placement in the depository, or send us
the URL's where it can be found so we can link to them.
Otherwise, if you have any materials in electronic Grade II
format and would like us to consider adding them to our
depository, please send them to us at the addresses above.
Electronic Grade II Braille files can usually be identified by
their extensions. The most commonly used Braille file extensions
are .brf and .brl. Materials of interest to us include literary
titles, appliance manuals, computer and software manuals, crafts
books, how-to titles, cookbooks, maps, Braille graphics,
textbooks, music scores--just about anything you can imagine and
would like to contribute to this resource. We will accept
contributions from anywhere in the world. We will also place NFB
chapter, division, or affiliate newsletters in the depository if
they are provided in Grade II format. Again you can send these to
us by e-mail or by snail mail. We ask all Division and State
Presidents to supply us with electronic Grade II copies of their
newsletters. 
                           **********
* Financial assistance:
     Since many types of materials can be included in a resource
like this, we would like to pay for material translation and for
general maintenance of the Braille Book Depository. All financial
contributions to this project are welcome and should be sent to
Dr. T.V. Cranmer, President, International Braille Research
Center, 4424 Brookhaven Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40220.
                           **********
* When will the depository be online?
     We plan to launch the site and make it available to the
blind community as soon as we have at least 100 titles in Grade
II Braille, but an enthusiastic response and contributions of
materials already in Grade II format will boost this number
significantly. You can learn more about the activities of the
International Braille Research Center by visiting
<http://www.braille.org>. This new and exciting resource promises
to revolutionize the availability of Braille to the worldwide
blind community in the next millennium and represents a cutting-
edge solution to the problem of access to Braille materials.
                           **********
Seedlings 1999 Catalogue:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Seedlings Braille Books for Children announces that its new
1999 catalog is now available. It contains over 330 low-cost
Braille books for children. Thirty-seven new books have been
added this year, including:

     For pre-schoolers: print-Braille-and-picture books like
Clifford's Furry Friends ($9) and Frosty the Snowman, a musical
board book ($6).

     For beginning readers: print-and-Braille easy-readers like
Arthur's Pet Business ($8).

     For older children: Newberry Award winners in Braille such
as Julie of the Wolves ($17) and A Wrinkle in Time ($20).

     Other new Braille books include selections from popular
series like The Dear America Series and The American Girls
Collection.

     For more information, check Seedlings' Web page at its new
address: <http://www.seedlings.org>. To receive a free catalog,
call (800) 777-8552, or write to Seedlings, P.O. Box 51924,
Livonia, Michigan 48151-5924, or e-mail <seedlink@aol.com>.
                           **********
For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Perkins large cell Braille Writer for sale, one year new.
Paid $850, asking $500 firm. If interested, send cassette with
name and address to Melissa Zeoli, 211 Scituate Vista Drive,
Cranston, Rhode Island 02921. No personal checks will be
accepted, only money orders.
                           **********
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Mary Ellen and Paul Gabias enjoy the Texas
barbecue at Bear Creek with children Joanne, Geoffrey, and
Philip, who is in the backpack.]
New Baby:
     With great joy Mary Ellen and Paul Gabias, longtime
Federation leaders, report the birth of Elliott Pierre
(pronounced Peer like the capital of South Dakota) at 3:07 p.m.
on September 3, 1998. Elliott was born at home and weighed in at
seven pounds and three ounces and measured twenty inches. Big
brother Philip was taking a nap at the time, but Geoffrey and
Joanne were present to greet their new brother's entrance into
the family. All the Gabiases are doing well.
                           **********
                           **********
                           NFB PLEDGE
                           **********
     I pledge to participate actively in the effort of the
National Federation of the Blind to achieve equality,
opportunity, and security for the blind; to support the policies
and programs of the Federation; and to abide by its constitution.

