ROBERT ACOSTA: A STUDY IN LAVISH LIVING AND LIMOUSINES
by Kenneth Jernigan

     In mid-April of this year, Complaint number BC102521 was
filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Its caption
was "California Council of the Blind versus Robert Acosta." The
circumstances leading up to this event are labyrinthine in nature
and have ramifications far beyond the borders of the state.
     In 1977 Acosta became president of the California affiliate
of the National Federation of the Blind, and in 1978 he was 
expelled from the Federation and found himself the center of a
lawsuit, which dragged on for several years. Two of the charges
against him were that he had put his wife on the state
affiliate's payroll without the knowledge or consent of the board
and that he had bought her an expensive clock with organization
funds. 
     Shortly after the conclusion of the lawsuit, early in 1983,
Acosta became president of the American Council of the Blind's
California affiliate and continued in that position until the
fall of 1992, at which time he did not run for another term,
being succeeded by John Lopez. By the time of his departure from
the California presidency, he had achieved a high profile at the
national level in American Council of the Blind (ACB) politics
and affairs. He was the organization's second vice president and
would clearly be a strong contender for its presidency at the end
of the term of LeRoy Saunders. He was also president of ALL (the
Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind), of which ACB
is a principal constituent. It was widely believed that he had
put a good deal of California money into both ALL and the
American Council of the Blind and that his departure from the
California presidency was meant to be a prelude to expanded
horizons at the national level. Acosta could reasonably expect
that he would not be giving anything up by relinquishing his
California presidency since he was filling the position with a
chosen lieutenant, John Lopez--but if this was his thinking, it
would take only a few months to show its disastrous fallacy. As
Lopez was to say before a roomful of people in the fall of 1993:
"I guess Mr. Acosta doesn't like for me to be an honest man--but
I will not change."
     Perhaps the best way to show where things stood when Lopez
made his statement is to give pertinent parts of the recording of
a board meeting of the California Council of the Blind held at
the Crown Plaza Holiday Inn in Los Angeles, on Thursday evening,
November 4, 1993. The tape begins with a lengthy discussion
concerning several sets of minutes. Then, John Lopez, the
President of the California Council of the Blind, says:

     Mrs. Parker is going to read the inventory to us--what the
Council property is, what we have, and what maybe belongs to us
but we don't have it with us and we hope to regain it or bring it
back.
     Let me just briefly say a comment on the public relations.
There was a discussion [in the previous budget report] about the
reader for Mr. Urena. [This is Sid Urena, the California Council
of the Blind lobbyist, the brother of Manuel Urena, who works for
the California Department of Rehabilitation.] The $15,000 are
very justified. If you remember, there was a discussion about the
reader for Mr. Urena, our capital representative. There was quite
a discussion on that. He discovered that if his wife was not
allowed to read to him, it would be very expensive. Secretaries
would be charging over $10 an hour, and they would only work 8
hours a day, blah, blah--I don't want to go into that. But the
fact is that his wife reads to him now. If he needs her at 10:00
at night, she's there; 3:00 in the morning, she's there; and she
gets paid only very little. [applause] She is not getting paid
$10 an hour. She's getting paid $250 a month, and that is
nothing. 

     After these comments the inventory is read: 

     6 wooden desks; 5 credenzas; 2 typewriters; 3 computers; 2
laptop computers; 4 monitors; 2 laser printers, and 1 Star
printer with printer stands; 7 filing cabinets; 1 Braille
printer; 1 FAX machine with stand; 1 tape duplicator with stand;
1 postage machine with stand; 1 conference table with 6 chairs; 2
tables; 1 glass display for a CCB store; 5 storage cabinets; 13
chairs; 1 couch; 1 Franklin Dictionary Language Master; 1
miscellaneous plant [laughter]; 1 water cooler; 1 small
refrigerator; 1 microwave; 1 computer unit.
     Mr. Lopez: If my memory serves me correctly, I believe there
are two items that are not in the office which we're trying to
retrieve, and that's the computer that now is under the--in Ms.
Pat Urena's home [Pat Urena is the wife of Manuel Urena], and
maybe we will be. . .
     [Mr. Lopez is interrupted by a board member.] Mr. President,
I think that's something that the membership should know.
Wouldn't every member in here like to have a laptop computer that
belongs to the CCB for their use? [applause] I don't have a
question that it's justified being there, but I would like to
know why Ms. Urena has a laptop computer that belongs to the CCB.
Also, where's the other one?
     John Lopez: Okay, I will give her the opportunity to explain
that to us, but at the moment we're going to proceed, and we
will. . .
     [Several voices interrupt with "She's right here; let her
tell you."]
     John Lopez: Okay, does the board approve of her taking the
time of the agenda now to answer that question? [Shouts of
"yes!"] Okay, no objections to that. Okay, Pat, go ahead.
     Pat Urena: After years of providing services to the CCB such
as doing the histories by typewriter, doing mailing lists for
legislative receptions, having to buy some of those services,
having terrible experiences in trying to buy those services
because there's a limit to what the girls in the office can do, I
was asked if I would be willing to undertake projects for the
Council if I was provided with a computer. [unidentified board
member, "And it's free".] It certainly is, Sir. I would be
insulted. . . [momentary confused discussion] Well, I don't know
what else to say. We all understood that it was not my computer,
that it was for the Council. I provided to you--because
apparently you did not have in the office--the information on
what it consisted of. I don't know what else I can say. If
there's some imputation that something crooked was going on, I
certainly resent that. Now I trust that nothing like that was
meant or intended here. But the fact is that that's what I've
been up to with it. [Applause]
     John Lopez: Am I correct? The amount of that computer, I
believe, ran up to about $5,500. I understand it has lap
capabilities or is a lap computer. I don't know; I'm ignorant
when it comes to computers. . . .
     The other item that needs to be retrieved is the Language
Master Franklin Dictionaries, I believe. Like I said, I'm
ignorant when it comes to computers. But I believe that's what it
is, the Language Master Dictionary. I believe Mr. Acosta has that
one. The Council did pay for it. We have the invoice on it, and
that's another one we would like to have retrieved because it is
CCB property.
     Marion Fisher: I am not saying that there's anything crooked
about Pat having the computer. I simply asked the question. I
don't say that there's anything crooked about Bob having the
Language Master. My question now is: John came to this Board
asking for a resolution and permission to buy a duplicator.
[referring to an earlier discussion about the purchase of a tape
duplicator] Did the Board give the authority to buy these laptop
computers and the Language Master Dictionary? Is that on record
as being approved by the Board, or is that something that. . .
     John Lopez: No, no, no there isn't. [An exchange follows
about whether Board permission is required and why, if not, Mr.
Lopez brought the duplicator question to the Board.]
     John Lopez: Let me tell you right now I'm being asked every
time I spend something. I've been criticized, so that's the way
it's going right now. Let's move on to the agenda.
     I hadn't planned to have brought this up, but items that
have been going out and writing letters humiliating me and
accusing me of many things have forced me. I don't believe none
of you have received letters from me humiliating any of the board
members, and some of these letters that are circulating are
humiliating to your president of the CCB. I want to say that I'm
sure that the first vice president, Mr. Acosta, has probably
regretted that he chose a man for the presidency of the CCB--that
he chose the wrong man. And I agree, he chose the wrong man. 
Because it's a man of honesty. [loud applause and shouts of
praise] Thank you very much; let's please have order. I am also a
president of integrity. Therefore, I am not going to give you
reasons, any further reasons as to. . . . I could sit here and
tell you many reasons why I'm bringing this about, but I think
the presentation will explain--will be self-explanatory. The last
year of my presidency has been a very difficult one because I've
had no support from my first vice president. There are reasons I
could give you here tonight, and I think one of the biggest
reasons--I'll give it to you briefly--was that he wanted me to
agree that he should continue with the president's financial
privileges. And I said, "Mr. Acosta, I cannot permit that. No
first vice president in this organization, as far as I can
remember, has ever come in and to continue having the financial
privileges that the president has, and I'm not about to start
that." [applause] Therefore I proceeded--now I found these things
eventually. Two months later I found out those privileges do not
belong to anybody but the president.
     So two months later, when Bob and I had a meeting, I asked
him to please put on my desk his credit card--his gasoline credit
card--and to please turn in his cellular phone. At this moment
Mr. Acosta became very angry, and I think that's when he slammed
the door in my face and walked away, and things just went
against--you know I just had to go against the grain there for
the rest of the year, and that's the way it's been.
     The last thing that I also told him at our budget and
finance committee meeting--after the budget meeting I said, "Mr.
Acosta, I cannot continue paying your phone bill, which the CCB
is paying for. I will reimburse you like anybody else, but we
have been paying a monthly bill from you; the lowest one that I
paid--that the CCB paid--was $104. This last year there have been
bills for $140, $130, etc. This last one is the one that
triggered off my suspicion. And that suspicion is that by
accident one of my secretaries found that a number, or a couple
of numbers--at least one--you were calling a mortgage company.   
Mr. Acosta said,"Well, there was a mistake on my reader."
     I said, "Well, perhaps it was a mistake. What if you hadn't
found it? How many mistakes has the CCB paid for in the last
year?" [applause]
     So with that in mind it just makes things worse. I guess Mr.
Acosta doesn't like for me to be an honest man. [laughter] But I
will not change. [applause and cheering]. . .
     John Lopez: Okay, so anyway, I have been elected by you, and
I will stand by you and make this organization a democratic one
and bring it back to you members. [applause]
     I will now read to you the agenda item no. 8, and we'll have
our legal counsel take it from there. Number 8 reads, "The report
by retained counsel, Allan Grossman, to evaluate and advise with
respect to Mr. Acosta's refusal to sign the 1992 management
representation letter by the Council's auditor as well as other
materials which might arise in reference to such evaluation." And
I present to you Mr. Grossman. [applause]
     Allan Grossman: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name
again is Allan Grossman; I'm an attorney, and, Mr. Lopez, I hand
you now my letter report, which I will now read:

                         _______________

John B. Lopez, President and Chair
 of the Board of Directors
California Council of the Blind
8700 Reseda Blvd., Suite 208
Northridge, California

Dear Mr. Lopez:
     Upon the vote of the board of directors at its September,
1993, meeting, I understand that you are authorized to retain me
to review the records of the Council concerning problems with Mr.
Acosta and to advise the board of ways it could resolve the
problems. This letter represents my interim report, which you
have asked me to read to the board of directors at its meeting
tonight. At the outset of my work you provided me with the
following background information:

     1. In May, 1977, Mr. Acosta became president.
     2. In November, 1992, rather than seek another term as
     president, he chose to run for and was elected first
     vice president.
     3. All during that time, i.e., May, 1977, to the
     present, he has also been a member of the board of
     directors--this by virtue of the bylaws, which makes
     the president chair of the board and all other officers
     members of the board.
     4. In November, 1992, upon assuming responsibility as
     president, the matters which you asked me to
     investigate started to come to your attention.
     Particularly troublesome was Mr. Acosta's refusal to
     sign the management representation letter to Michael
     Finch, the Council's auditor, authorizing him to
     finalize the 1992 audit, which to date Mr. Acosta still
     refuses to sign.

         The Fiduciary Duties of Officers and Directors
            of Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporations
                      Under California Law

     Officers and directors of nonprofit corporations are held to
high fiduciary standards typically associated with trustees of
charitable trusts. However, California statutory law has limited
the liability of such officers and directors for negligent acts
and omissions.
     On the other hand, California law does not limit the
liability of an officer or director for intentional, wanton, or
reckless acts; gross negligence; or actions based on fraud,
oppression, or malice. The president of the Council serves on a
volunteer basis, i.e., without compensation. However, even though
serving as a volunteer and without compensation, the president is
entitled to reimbursement for or payment of reasonable,
necessary, and actual expenses incurred (a) for the benefit of
the corporation and its public or charitable purposes and (b) in
the performance or execution of his or her duties as an officer
or director of the corporation.
     Put another way, it is the president's duty to ensure that
any funds raised by your organization be used only to serve its
purposes, and it would be an abuse and violation of the
president's fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the Council
if the president used his or her position in order to reap
personal benefits at the organization's expense or ignored his or
her fiduciary duty to actively promote its purposes.

                            Findings

     With the above-mentioned principles in mind, I examined
Council records which you presented to me. After reviewing those
records, I discovered that many charges by Mr. Acosta while
president apparently were not for the benefit of the Council, but
were instead for his personal benefit. While my investigation
into those disbursements continues and is by no means complete or
final, I present to you a sampling of such items for which
apparently he has not reimbursed the Council:

     1. From 1989 to 1991, he incurred nineteen separate
     charges for limousine service to transport Mrs.
     Acosta's niece, Julie Barth, and sometimes her husband,
     Dennis Barth, to and from the Los Angeles International
     Airport and from UCLA Medical Center and the Acostas'
     home in Chatsworth for a charge of $2,131.
     2. From 1988 to 1992 he incurred thirteen separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to and from his parents' home in San Gabriel--
     $1,756.
     3. In May, 1990, he incurred charges for limousine
     service to transport himself, his wife, his son, and
     others to his son's (Tom's) wedding reception and
     hotel, etc.--$1,609.
     4. From 1989 to 1990 he incurred thirty-three separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to the Weight Watchers' office in the Capri
     Shopping Center in Tarzana--$1,531.
     5. From 1989 to 1992 he incurred ten separate limousine
     charges to transport Mrs. Acosta to and from medical
     appointments, and on one occasion, from home to the
     doctor, then to the beauty salon, and back home--$976.
     6. In 1990 and 1991 he incurred two separate charges
     for limousine service to transport himself and his wife
     to Dodger Stadium--$569.
     7. In January, 1987, he incurred credit card charges
     for NutriSystem Weight Reduction Programs for himself
     and his wife--$533.
     8. From 1990 to 1991 he incurred four separate charges
     for limousine service to transport himself and his wife
     to the Glendale Galleria and to Mission Jewelers at the
     Golden Mall in Burbank--$824.
     9. The August 19, 1992, statement from American Express
     Corporate Card reflects a charge for a Franklin
     Language Master Computer Dictionary. To date he has
     failed to return it, notwithstanding your request for
     the return of all Council property in his possession--
     $500.
     10. In March, 1991, he incurred a charge for limousine
     service to transport him and his wife to the Fisher
     wedding--$465.
     11. In October, 1988, he incurred two separate charges for
     limousine service to transport himself, his wife, and Mr.
     and Mrs. Stockstill to the Lawry Center in Santa Barbara--
     $406.
     12. In August, 1992, he incurred two separate charges for
     limousine service to transport himself and his wife to and
     from the Big Bear Inn in Big Bear, California--$397.
     13. In 1986 he incurred a credit card charge for Tom's Men's
     Wear in Alhambra--$367.
     14. In 1991 he incurred two separate charges for limousine
     service to transport himself to and from his tailor, Ron
     Rinker Clothing in Los Angeles--$221.
     15. On April 16, 1992, he incurred a charge for limousine
     service to transport Mrs. Acosta and Lynn Curtis to the
     Seafood Broiler in Northridge--$130.
     16. On July 30, 1992, he incurred a charge for limousine
     service to transport Mrs. Acosta's sister from LAX [acronym
     for Los Angeles International Airport] to the Holiday Inn in
     Brentwood--$68.

     The total of items 1 through 16 equals $12,183. Please
understand that the above listing of disbursements by Mr. Acosta,
apparently for his personal benefit, is not total or complete,
but merely a representative sampling of those items that I have
been able to identify since commencing my work for you. In that
regard my investigation continues. There are, nevertheless,
several items which I believe are important enough to call to
your attention at this time and which in my opinion require
further study and evaluation. For example:

     1. During the time that Mr. Acosta was president, he held a
Council American Express card, which he was entitled to use for
charging Council expenses. Reviewing some of the American Express
card statements from 1984 to 1991, I have identified numerous
restaurant charges incurred by him totalling $4,462. There are
other charges by Mr. Acosta on those statements which appear to
be personal.
     2. From 1990 to 1992 he incurred charges for limousine
service to various restaurants in the amount of $833.
     3. He also had available to him a Council Unicard [gasoline]
charge card. From 1985 to 1992 he charged $7,206. I'm informed
that Mr. Acosta lives in Chatsworth, which is just a few miles
north of the Council office in Northridge, and that he teaches at
Chatsworth High School, which is also close to his home. It is
difficult to understand, especially in light of all of the
limousine charges he incurred over the same period of time, how
he could have spent so much for gasoline on Council business. I
am informed that these gasoline charges were incurred by his
drivers for the Acostas' personal use and benefit. Because of the
short time that I've been involved in this matter, I am unable to
form an opinion whether these charges or any portion thereof were
properly charged to the Council or whether they should be borne
by Mr. Acosta personally.
     4. I am informed that from time to time during Mr. Acosta's
presidency he hired part-time drivers to assist him with his
duties for the Council. Apparently [the State of] California paid
those people for up to fifteen hours of work as readers. The
balance of their time was paid by the Council. For example, the
Council paid Ana Banovac $13,875 from September, 1990, through
December, 1992; Vanessa Price, $1,828 from January, 1992, to
January, 1993; Barrie Mikell, $6,109 from August, 1984, to
February, 1986. Other drivers were Sandy Terry, Kim White, Ruth
Olivetto, Lisa DeAngelo, Lisa Brew, Kenny Marco, Bethany Eisland,
and Julie Harris. I understand that while some of these people
did on occasion work in the office doing photocopying and some
secretarial chores, they were used primarily by Mr. Acosta to run
personal errands for himself and his wife. This item also needs
further investigation to determine whether the amounts paid by
the Council to these people or any portion thereof were properly
charged to the Council or should have been paid by Mr. Acosta
because they were for his personal benefit.
     5. I have also identified cash draws in varying amounts from
$100 to $1,000 from the Council's bank account, purportedly to
cover Mr. Acosta's out-of-pocket expenses at meetings,
conferences, and conventions. In this regard, during 1991 and
1992, he drew $10,920. I am informed that he has not supplied any
receipts for those withdrawals, nor has he returned any portion
of those funds to the Council.

         Findings Regarding Helping Hands for the Blind

     In October, 1990, Mr. Acosta incorporated Helping Hands for
the Blind, a California public-benefit, nonprofit corporation.
The officers of Helping Hands were Mr. Acosta as president; his
wife, Ruth Ann, as vice president; and the Council's secretaries-
-Barbara Parker as treasurer, and Marnie Alveno as secretary. He
used the facilities of the Council office and its staff to assist
him in the formation and operation of that corporation.
     I believe that, soon after incorporation, Mr. Acosta
acquired a thrift store in Lancaster for Helping Hands. That
thrift store was in direct competition with the exclusive
contract the Council had with Bill Ashe and his American Way
thrift stores. In the spring of 1991 Mr. Acosta on behalf of the
Council was renegotiating the Council's contract with Mr. Ashe.
Mr. Ashe complained to Mr. Acosta that he thought it was improper
for him to be running a thrift store in direct competition with
the Council's thrift stores, and apparently he used that fact
among others to help him renegotiate his American Way thrift
store contract with the Council. The new American Way thrift
store contract became operational July 1, 1991, resulting in more
than a $100,000-a-year reduction in the amount that Mr. Ashe pays
the Council. At this time it is not clear whether Mr. Acosta's
Helping Hand thrift store is still operating. Further
investigation is needed in that regard. Nevertheless, if the
above facts are true, Mr. Acosta may be liable to the Council for
monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages for
operating a thrift store in direct competition with the Council's
American Way thrift stores. In my opinion this would constitute a
breach of his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Council and its
public and charitable purposes.
     I inquired of the Council's staff, particularly Barbara
Parker and Marnie Alveno, long-time secretaries with the Council,
whether they assisted Mr. Acosta in the formation/operation of
Helping Hands. They stated that they had assisted him but only
because he compelled them to do so under threat of losing their
jobs. [boos from audience] In January, 1993, both Barbara Parker
and Marnie Alveno resigned as officers of Helping Hands.

                         Recommendations

     1. It is my recommendation for the board that these matters
be settled with Mr. Acosta, which I understand would be the
preference of the Council in light of the many years he served as
an officer and director. I would urge, however, that negotiations
begin within fifteen days and that the matter be settled within
thirty days.
     2. If the matter is not amicably settled within thirty days,
it is my recommendation that the Council immediately commence
litigation against Mr. Acosta, seeking all remedies which the law
makes available to the Council under such circumstances.

     Resolution of the above matters with Mr. Acosta is in my
opinion necessary for the following reasons:

     1. Possible loss of tax-exempt status with the Internal
Revenue Service. The Council's tax-exempt status as a nonprofit
corporation is granted under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code--the Code provision applicable to charitable
organizations. This section requires "that no part of the net
earnings of the exempt organization inure to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual." Courts have construed this
requirement to prohibit self-dealing by officers and directors of
tax-exempt corporations. Since the IRS polices those
organizations for violations of fiduciary duties established by
the Code, if it finds such self-dealing by an officer or
director, it may among other penalties include forfeiture of the
corporation's tax-exempt status.
     2. Possible loss of grants and donations.
     3. Complaints filed with the state's attorney general. The
other day I spoke with Mr. Baumann, the auditor for the
charitable trust section of the state attorney general. Mr.
Baumann informed me that he has received a number of telephone
calls complaining about improper disbursements by the Council
which may have occurred while Mr. Acosta was president. Mr.
Baumann stated that he had requested those telephone callers to
put their complaints in writing but to date has not received any
letters from them. He said that, if the attorney general receives
letters of complaint about the Council, his office is charged by
law to investigate such written complaints and, if true, to
prosecute appropriate actions to remedy violation of the state's
nonprofit corporations laws dealing with improper and illegal
disbursements.
     4. Possible action by the state attorney general against the
directors personally if they should fail to pursue Mr. Acosta if
it is established that the above matters related in this letter
are true.
                                          Respectfully submitted,
                                                Allan F. Grossman
                           __________

     Marion Fisher: By your last statement does that mean that,
if we do not pursue any action and the state attorney general
investigates this and finds that there is wrongdoing, that this
wrongdoing falls on the shoulders of every board member?
     Allan Grossman: Yes, Mr. Fisher. I have in the course of my
research of the law found several cases--not from California but
from other states, sister states--where the state attorney
general commenced litigation against innocent board members of
nonprofit corporations because they were neglectful and had
failed to prosecute the errant officer or director.
     Roger Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I think before we go on with
this discussion, it would be appropriate to move, and I therefore
do move, that we accept this report. [Someone seconds the
motion.]
     John Lopez: All in favor please signify by saying "Aye."
[Ayes are heard.] Opposed. [No opposition is heard.] Thank you.
     Allan Grossman: I would like to add two comments that are
not in the letter, Mr. Lopez, if I may.
     John Lopez: Yes, you may.
     Allan Grossman: Number one, I want you to know and your
board to know that I have--and I have them with me if anyone
would like to examine them--the records that I used which will
support the matters stated in my letter report tonight. That
stack of records from your office weighs in excess of six pounds
[Whistles from the audience] and is about five inches high. The
other thing that I would like to state, as I mentioned in my
report: this is a tentative report, an interim report, and no
more than a couple of hours ago in the corridor I was advised
that the item that I reported here of some $1,600 for limousine
service for Mr. Acosta's son's wedding was actually understated
and the actual invoices for the limousine service for that
wedding was $2,200. So it is important that your board understand
that this investigation is still ongoing and is not meant to be a
total, final, and complete report at this time.
     Jeff Tom: Regarding the length of time in your
recommendations, can you tell us why you chose such short periods
for commencing litigation if negotiations don't work?
     Allan Grossman: Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Baumann, the
auditor in the charitable trust section in the nonprofit
corporation section of the attorney general's office for Southern
California, has advised me that there are these telephone
complaints about your Council--about your organization--and he
was, I think, glad to hear that your organization is looking into
these matters, and he asked me to call him next week and to
report back to him what action if any your board took.
     There's also the possibility, as I mentioned, that if the
IRS should choose to investigate--they do do random checks of
nonprofit corporations--whether your organization would come up
during one of those random audits by the IRS, I don't know. But
it seems to me that these are matters that have gone on for a
long time. There may be other problems as more time goes on, the
memory of people fades, witnesses move away, records are lost or
destroyed. I think now that this effort has been made to look
into these matters, and because they involve possible violation
of fiduciary duties, it's incumbent upon your organization to act
promptly.
     Winifred Downing: In view of the fact that not one letter of
the phone calls that have been registered with the attorney
general, that there's been no supporting evidence of those
complaints in writing--not one--I would like to propose, since
Mr. Acosta hasn't had a chance to do this kind of investigation
and may have some replies to all of this, that the period be
extended. I don't think we're going to jail if it's a month
longer.
     Roger Peterson: I think the appropriate way to do this would
be to get a motion on the floor; then we can do whatever we wish
with the motion. Therefore, I move that the board of directors
directs the president to continue to follow the advice of legal
counsel and to implement the recommendations as stated in the
letter report. [The motion is seconded.]
     Unidentified speaker: I think what Win and Jeff are saying
is that every member has a right to defend himself, to have
access to these documents, and to have their attorney. To date,
Mr. Acosta hasn't been able to get in to look at the books. I
think the supporting documents need to be examined, and as slow
as legal matters are and arranging for attorneys, I think that
thirty days is much too short--Mr. Acosta is not the president,
he does not have the credit cards--that this matter can wait
certainly another thirty or sixty days. Let's give him a fair
chance to answer these charges. [applause]
     Jeff Tom: My position was misstated, not intentionally, I
think. I was asking a question to our attorney. That wasn't
necessarily my position, and I just wanted to see what his
reasoning was. I think that upon his recommendation, and
especially in light of the fact that it's obvious that just the
commencement of litigation won't mean the end of it, that in that
case everything is going to be seen by everyone, that I think we
should indeed go along with the recommendation of our attorney.  
     Marion Fisher: Mr. President and other members of the board,
I've been on this board for approximately a year. Apparently most
of these things, these allegations, existed--happened--more than
a year ago. I myself, as a present member of the board of
directors, do not feel like taking a chance of having this fall
on my shoulders for something that happened in the past. I do
take my responsibilities as a member of the board of directors to
what extent that I should, but I don't think that I should take a
chance on having something that happened two years ago, five
years ago, ten years ago, that I was not any way related to,
being a party of, or having any knowledge of--I don't want it
falling on my shoulders, and I feel that we should definitely
follow the recommendations of the attorney. [applause]
     [At this point the tape runs out, and some words are missing
as the new side begins.]
     Chris Gray: . . .there's a thing for CCB. We've been tied up
in knots for the last nine months. Our initiatives are dampened,
in many cases, taken away from us, and we don't need to be tied
up for thirty days, or three months, or six months, while we
wrangle back and forth, sending a lot of letters back and forth.
If our attorney feels that twenty days is better than fifteen, or
if we're making a lot of progress in forty days instead of
thirty, I'm sure he'd tell us, and I'm sure John would follow it.
     Winifred Downing: I want to amend the motion in spite of all
the conversation and things that have been said. I would like to
amend the motion to give Mr. Acosta more time [Applause and
shouts of "no"] We are going to get to vote on the amendment,
Board of Directors, so it will not be rammed down your throat,
and the members of the audience is not going to get to vote on
it. I wish to amend the motion to be just to somebody who has
given the organization, whatever his faults are, many years of
service. And I'm not denying his faults, but you guys cannot deny
the service either. And you can't deny the fact. . . [much
commotion of scattered applause and shouts] Please let me finish.
     John Lopez: [shouting] Let's have order, please; let's have
order, please.
     Winifred Downing: I'm not denying that there are faults
here. I am telling you that the Council now is an extremely--and
a year ago was when Bob left it--extremely large organization,
much stronger than it was in 1978 when we had the split. Somebody
worked, a lot of people worked, but he also worked very hard. In
justice I think we should give him a little time to answer these
charges. That does not say that I'm forgiving him these charges.
It says that I think he should have time to answer them and that
thirty days is a very short time. He has not been in the office
to look at the books, and he may not be able to find the readers
right away to do that. I can't sometimes. . . [jeers] I don't
think it's right for the audience to comment. This is a board
decision, and the board will get to vote. [jeers and comments
about kicking out] I'm not kicking anybody anywhere. I really
resent this kind of activity. I think it's very unjust. If I were
in a position, I would want to be given a fair shake, and I think
you guys--you're not going to lose it for giving it a month. And
Marion isn't going to go to jail if we give [Bob Acosta] an extra
month. I'm not going to jail either, so an extra month isn't
going to mean anything to us, really, and it may mean a great
deal to him.
     I don't know if it matters--I know nothing about legal
action, and I don't therefore know how much it will mean. 
[confused comments in the background as she speaks] Will anybody
second the amendment before we go any further than that?
     Unidentified voice: What was it?
     I just said I amended the motion to extend the time by
thirty days.
     Unidentified voice: What was Roger's motion please?
     John Lopez: Roger, what was your motion please?
     Roger Peterson: The motion was to follow the recommendations
of the legal counsel.
     Winifred Downing: And I am not amending that process. I
think we should follow the recommendations. All I'm asking is an
extension in time. So, you know, don't boo me out of the
organization.
     Connie Schoeman: Is there a second to that--was it seconded?
     John Lopez: Yes it is. Mr. Grossman, was your recommendation
fifteen to thirty days?
     Allan Grossman: Yes.
     Connie Schoeman: Excuse me, Mr. President, point of
information. This hour of the night I tend to get confused. We
have an amendment now, am I correct, that says you wish to extend
the time?
     Winifred Downing: Yes.
     Connie Schoeman: And that was seconded by Don. And we're not
voting on Roger's motion? We have to vote now on the amendment.
Am I correct?
     Winifred Downing: That's correct.
     Connie Schoeman: Good for me. [laughter] Could we hear the
original recommendation? Would you read it back to us please, Mr.
Grossman?. . .
     Allan Grossman: Let me read all of my recommendations again
so that--there are only two short paragraphs. [He rereads the
recommendations from his letter.]
     Marion Fisher: Mr. President, I for one think the amendment
has not stated any amount of time.
     Winifred Downing: It did! it did! thirty days!
     Marion Fisher: It did state another thirty days? Pardon me.
But my feeling is that I would love to see us settle this matter
with Mr. Acosta because I expressed to Mr. Acosta in the board
meeting--at the end of the board meeting on September 25--that it
really pained me to see the way, as Chris put it, that he kept
this Council tied up in knots for the last nine months. Because
I, among many other people, realize what one hell of a bunch of
work Bob put into this Council over the years. And it just breaks
my heart to see him tear down what he worked so hard to do in
fifteen years--to tear it down in one year.
     Winifred Downing: Well, is thirty days going to make a lot
of difference here?
     Marion Fisher: Well, I'm afraid I don't think thirty days is
going to make any difference. I don't think sixty; I think it's
either going to be settled now or it's not going to be settled.
     Unidentified male voice: Mr. President, I would like to
speak in favor of the amendment. If we--when we talk about
initiating litigation and things like that, it's kind of like
atomic war because this will tie up the organization for at least
four or five years if we go to court. Every court case that I've
ever been involved in or seen with organizations lasts forever.
The last one we were in lasted longer than the Second World War.
So let's give another thirty days and hope we can resolve this
matter.
     Unidentified female voice, interrupting: Mr. President, I
have a point of information for Mr. Grossman if I may? Mr.
Grossman, I'm not a lawyer person. I was tangled up with an
organization you mentioned a while ago; I worked for them for
eighteen years, but I'm still not a lawyer. And my question to
you is, isn't it usual--if we did follow your recommendation, if
his lawyer doesn't have enough time, they have the ability to
call you and say we need more time--haven't I seen lawyers do
that back and forth?
     Allan Grossman: Yes, certainly. If a good faith effort is
being made by both sides to settle this matter, I certainly
would--and some additional time was needed--I certainly would
come back to your board and recommend that. I think it behooves
the organization in light of these matters that some effort be
made by Mr. Acosta to promptly begin the process. And I take it
that these are not brand new matters. Perhaps the specificity of
what I have said is new, but apparently, as I've heard here,
there's been problems about these things for the past nine
months. So it's not as if--as far as I know--it's not as if it's
a brand new item.
     So I think I would--my recommendation is as I stated. Let
the negotiations begin. If there is good faith and more time is
needed to give Mr. Acosta an opportunity to be heard, I would
certainly recommend that to the Board.
     The unidentified female voice: Mr. Chairman, I call for the
question on the amendment.
     John Lopez: I would like to make a comment before that. . .
. I would like to say that in this negotiation we include that
Mr. Acosta no longer continue issuing letters, harassing the
president of the CCB, harassing the staff, and downplaying or
humiliating the president and the CCB officers--that this stop
now! [applause]  I have had it! This kind of childish play must
stop now; we cannot focus our attention on CCB work if we're
going to have to tolerate childish and rotten letters that are
not beneficial to the benefit of this organization. [applause]
     The same female voice: We've called for the question to the
amendment, Mr. President.
     [After a good bit of confusion and effort to clarify the
intent of the amendment, it fails when put to the vote, but not
resoundingly. applause]. . .
     John Lopez: On Roger's, the motion was to accept the
recommendation of the attorney, and we'll vote on it. All in
favor of the recommendation of the attorney signify by saying
"Aye." [The motion passes unanimously.] Thank you. [applause]    
Okay, Mr. Grossman, just for the point of clarification, would
you please state the recommendation that we just now passed?
     Allan Grossman: Yes. That settlement negotiations with Mr.
Acosta and his attorney begin within fifteen days from today, and
that the matter be amicably resolved by settlement within thirty
days. In the event that the matter is not settled within thirty
days, that litigation be commenced immediately thereafter.
     John Lopez: Okay. I think at this point it's appropriate
that we ask Mr. Acosta to come forward and make a statement. If
you wish, Mr. Acosta, the floor is all yours.
     [After some discussion Bob Acosta reads a resolution
commending Denise and David Weddle for their work at CCB for
twenty-three years.]
     John Lopez: Okay, Mr. Acosta, you have the floor to talk in
regard to the issues.
     Bob Acosta: My dear friends,. . . My dear friends, I guess
we're dealing with trust. In the political letters that we sent--
and they were, I thought, mostly political--I told you that I
would be sued. I told you that it would happen because we haven't
dealt with another issue that must be dealt with, and that is the
$16,000 of overtime for secretarial assistance last year. I
understand what is going on. I lived through 1978, and at that
time Ken Jernigan sued me for $15,000,000. [An unidentified voice
interrupts with, "Because you hired your wife."] And by the way,
if my home were burning, I don't know that I'd go to some of you
guys for help. But that's all right. I can assure you that I've
never gotten rich on the Council. I categorically deny all of
those charges, and I look forward to the opportunity of
responding in writing. And yet this board, many people have pre-
judged, they said hey, let's throw this blind man in jail and
let's give him only fifteen days to respond. But you've made your
choice, and I will respond to it. I ask you in spite of the fact
that I wonder what this lawyer is charging us for his time at the
end of the agenda. You gotta think about that. I wonder what's
up--you know these charges, many of them, all of them, are
totally untrue, and I look forward to responding to them. But see
it for what it is: a political smear--an attempt to avoid the
question of a $16,000 overtime which I never authorized, and
we've got to deal with that. You can't avoid it. Thank you, and
God bless you all.
     John Lopez: I must repeat what Chris Gray said a while ago:
Bob, you wrote the book. 

     The remainder of the meeting consisted of comments
concerning the amount of time worked by CCB staff and discussion
of a motion to do whatever was necessary to work with the
National Federation of the Blind to see that a strong Braille
bill is passed by the California legislature. At the close of the
meeting members of the audience were invited to comment on the
issues raised during the evening.
     The California Council of the Blind convention at which this
board meeting occurred was one of the most turbulent in the
organization's history, with each party (the staff, the board,
and Bob Acosta) having its own attorney, dealing at arm's length,
and prepared to do battle. There was tumult among the membership
as well. One of those attending was Peter-Marc Damien, who said
in the Spring, 1994, Blind Californian:

     The Fall CCB Convention for 1993 will no doubt be remembered
in the blind community as one of the most contentious in history.
     . . . . Bob Acosta was president of the CCB for sixteen
years. In November, 1992, he hand-picked John Lopez to succeed
him due to directives from the American Council of the Blind, to
which Acosta aspired for national office. John was chosen because
Bob thought he could control him. John, on the other hand,
decided to be his own man. In an audit for 1992, there were some
discrepancies which came to John's attention. Lopez fired the
longtime accountant/treasurer, hired another and studied the
books going back to the beginning of Acosta's tenure, finding all
kinds of misuse of funds. One thing led to another and by
October, 1993, Acosta had hired lawyers and set up a slate of
officers (who were bound to support him) for the election to be
held in LA at the Convention. Lopez set up another slate (who
were bound to support "CCB") through the CCB Nominations
Committee.
     Acosta had also accused the sighted staff of financial
discrepancies. So they hired lawyers. CCB was really forced to
hire lawyers, too! The first public showdown, Thursday night,
revealed that the new accountant/treasurer had found receipts for
the misuse of CCB funds. Some examples were limo services, a taxi
hired to drive roundtrip from LA to Big Bear (that one was for
$2,200 alone), fees at NutriSystems and Weight Watchers, men's
wear, and so forth.
     The Convention exploded on the spot, dividing into several
camps. The longtime membership, many of whom were older people,
divided into two groups, those who supported Acosta no matter
what, and those who felt betrayed and angry. The newer
membership, mostly younger people, including students, as well as
older people, new (within the last five years) to the
organization (people like me) were mostly disgusted with the
whole thing. We were, it turned out, ready to vote for change.
     A coalition became apparent when voting began Friday
evening. Lopez dragged the whole Convention through all the
accusations yet another time before entertaining a motion to stop
debate. Acosta wanted the debate to continue. It was a measure to
test the water, as it turned out, because the Acosta faction lost
about two to one. In the election for second vice president, Don
Queen, Acosta's candidate, lost to Cathy Skivers, also by about
two to one. Lopez's candidate for treasurer, the same man
appointed to review the books, who made the best treasurer's
report in the history of CCB the night before, won by better than
two to one. He was nominally opposed, not by Acosta's candidate,
Pat Urena, who was never nominated, but by someone else. By the
time the positions on the board came up for a vote, Acosta's
candidates either declined nomination or were not nominated at
all. Basically, it was a rout, followed by a motion to recall
Acosta from his position as first vice president, which was voted
at the final session on Sunday.

     This is how one convention attendee viewed the November
meeting of the California Council of the Blind, and national
repercussions were soon to follow. Acosta either resigned from
(or in some other way was separated from) the position of second
vice president of the American Council of the Blind. This was
done quietly with only a brief routine announcement in ACB's
publication. Acosta also ceased to be president of ALL, again
with no public statement or fanfare. The situation was obviously
and understandably a cause of extreme embarrassment.
     Meanwhile, the months dragged by, and the California Council
of the Blind took no action against Acosta. Sources within the
organization indicate that internal bickering and consternation
were extreme--some hoping that Acosta would make restitution,
others feeling that he should be prosecuted immediately, and
still others holding that he should be given mercy. Many
apparently felt totally disillusioned and simply turned away with
disgust.
     Finally (on April 12, 1994) the CCB took action and filed a
lawsuit against Acosta in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 
Alleging fraud and violation of fiduciary duties, the Complaint
sets forth the cause of action. Item 4 of the Complaint is
noteworthy since it makes clear that others besides Acosta may
ultimately be sued. It reads as follows:

          4. Plaintiff sues fictitious defendants, Does 1
     though 20, inclusive, and each of them, because their
     names and/or capacitates and/or facts showing them
     liable to plaintiff are not presently known. Unless
     otherwise indicated, each defendant is sued as the
     agent and/or employee of every other defendant acting
     within the course and scope of said agency and/or
     employment, with the knowledge, direction, and/or
     consent of said co-defendants. Plaintiff is informed
     and believes and therefore alleges that each defendant
     designated herein as a "Doe" was responsible,
     intentionally, or wrongfully, or in some actionable
     manner, for the events and happenings referred to
     herein which were a legal cause of the injury and
     damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.

     Item 6 begins to give the specifics of the charges:

          6. Defendant Acosta, while an officer and director
     of plaintiff corporation, breached the above stated
     fiduciary duties of care in the following manner and
     ways:

          (a) During the time Mr. Acosta was president, he
     held a Council American Express card which he was
     entitled to use only for charging Council expenses.
     From 1984 to 1991, he made numerous restaurant charges
     on that credit card totaling approximately $4,462.
     Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
     alleges that said charges were for Acosta's personal
     benefit at plaintiff's expense, in an exact amount that
     will be established at trial.
          (b) From 1990 to 1992, Acosta incurred charges for
     limousine services to various restaurants, in the
     approximate amount of $833. Plaintiff is informed and
     believes and therefore alleges that said charges were
     for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's expense,
     in an exact amount that will be established at trial.
          (c) Acosta also had available to him a Council
     Unocal [gasoline] charge card. From 1985 to 1992, he
     charged approximately $7,206. Plaintiff is informed and
     believes and therefore alleges that said charges were
     for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's expense,
     in an exact amount that will be established at trial.
          (d) During Acosta's presidency, he hired part-time
     drivers purportedly to assist him with his duties for
     the Council. For example, the Council paid Ana Banovac
     approximately $13,875 from September 1990 through
     December 1992; Vanessa Price approximately $1,828 from
     January 1992 to January 1993; Barrie Mikell
     approximately $6,109 from August 1984 through February
     1986. Other drivers were also hired by him and paid by
     the Council. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
     therefore alleges these drivers were used primarily by
     Acosta to run personal errands for himself and his wife
     and were for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's
     expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
     trial.
          (e) During his presidency, Acosta took cash draws
     in varying amounts from $100 to $1,000 from the
     Council's bank account, purportedly to cover his out-
     of-pocket expenses at Council meetings, conferences,
     and conventions. In this regard, during 1991 and 1992,
     he drew approximately $10,920; that he has not supplied
     any receipts for those draws nor has he returned any
     portion of those funds to the Council. Plaintiff is
     informed and believes and therefore alleges that these
     draws were for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's
     expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
     trial.
     
          7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
     therefore alleges that during the time Acosta was
     president of the Council, he fraudulently, dishonestly,
     and unethically spent its charitable trust funds to
     maintain a lavish personal lifestyle at the Council's
     expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
     trial. The following are examples of the ways in which
     Acosta fraudulently, dishonestly, and unethically
     breached his fiduciary duties of care to plaintiff by
     spending corporate charitable trust funds to reap
     personal benefits:
          (a) From 1989 to 1991, he incurred 19 separate
     charges for limousine service to transport Mrs.
     Acosta's niece, Julie Barth (and sometimes her husband
     Dennis Barth) to and from Los Angeles International
     Airport, to and from UCLA Medical Center, and the
     Acosta home in Chatsworth, in the approximate sum of
     $2,131.
          (b) From 1988 to 1992, he incurred 13 separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to and from his parents' home in San Gabriel,
     in the approximate sum of $1,756.
          (c) In May, 1990, he incurred charges for
     limousine service to transport himself, his wife, his
     son, and others to his son Tom's wedding reception,
     hotel, etc., in the approximate sum of $1,609.
          (d) From 1989 to 1990, he incurred 33 separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to the Weight Watchers office in the Capri
     Plaza shopping center in Tarzana, in the approximate
     sum of $1,531.
          (e) From 1989 to 1992, he incurred 10 separate
     charges for limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta
     to and from medical appointments and, on one occasion
     from home to the doctor, then to the beauty salon, and
     then back home, in the approximate sum of $976.
               (f) In 1990 and 1991, he incurred two
     separate charges for limousine service to transport
     himself and his wife to Dodger Stadium, in the
     approximate sum of $569.
          (g) In January, 1987, he incurred credit card
     charges for the Nutri-System weight reduction program
     for himself and his wife, in the approximate sum of
     $533.
          (h) From 1990 to 1991, he incurred four separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to the Glendale Galleria and to Mission
     Jewelers at the Golden Mall in Burbank, in the
     approximate sum of $524.
          (i) A statement, dated August 19, 1992, from
     American Express Corporate Card, reflects a charge for
     a Franklin Language Master computer dictionary, which
     he has not returned to plaintiff, notwithstanding
     plaintiff's request for the return of all Council
     property in his possession, in the approximate sum of
     $500.
          (j) In March, 1991, he incurred a charge for
     limousine service to transport him and his wife to the
     Fisher wedding, in the approximate sum of $465.
          (k) In October, 1988, he incurred two separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself, his
     wife, and friends, Mr. and Mrs. Stockstill, to the
     Lawry Center in Santa Barbara, in the approximate sum
     of $406.
          (l) In August 1992, he incurred two separate
     charges for limousine service to transport himself and
     his wife to and from The Big Bear Inn, in the
     approximate sum of $397.
          (m) In 1986, he incurred a credit charge for Tom's
     Men's Wear in Alhambra, in the approximate sum of $367.
          (n) In 1991, he incurred two separate charges for
     limousine service to transport him to and from his
     tailor, Ron Rinker Clothing in Los Angeles, in the
     approximate sum of $221.
          (o) On April 16, 1992, he incurred a charge for
     limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta and Lynn
     Curtis to the Seafood Broiler in Northridge, in the
     approximate sum of $130.
          (p) On July 30, 1992, he incurred a charge for
     limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta's sister
     from Los Angeles International Airport to the Holiday
     Inn in Brentwood, in the approximate sum of $68.
          8. As a result of Acosta's fraudulent breaches of
     his fiduciary duties of care owed to plaintiff as
     alleged above, plaintiff prays that the court assess
     the compensatory damages for all of the fraudulent and
     illegal breaches of the fiduciary duty of care owed to
     plaintiff in an exact amount that will be established
     at trial.
          9. That because Acosta fraudulently breached his
     fiduciary duties of care to plaintiff in a despicable,
     deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner to
     injure and damage plaintiff, plaintiff requests the
     assessment of exemplary damages against defendants, and
     each of them, in an amount to be established according
     to proof at the time of trial.
          10. Plaintiff also requests the award of
     attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil
     Procedure section 1021.5.
          11. Plaintiff also requests the award of
     prejudgment interest to the extent allowable under
     section 3287 or 3288 of the Civil Code.

                             Count 2
   For Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Fraudulent Breach
  of Fiduciary Duties of Loyalty Against Robert Acosta. Does 11
                  Through 20, and Each of Them

          12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
     through 5 and paragraphs 8 through 11, inclusive, are
     realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully
     set forth herein.
          13. In October 1990, Acosta incorporated Helping
     Hands For the Blind, a California public benefit
     nonprofit corporation. The officers of Helping Hands
     were Mr. Acosta as president, and his wife Ruth Ann as
     vice president. He used the facilities of the Council
     office and its staff to assist him in the formation and
     operation of that corporation. Plaintiff is informed
     and believes and therefore alleges that soon after
     incorporation, Acosta acquired a thrift store to
     benefit Helping Hands, and that thrift store was in
     direct competition with the exclusive contract the
     Council had with Bill Ashe and his American Way Thrift
     Stores.
          14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
     therefore alleges that in the spring of 1991, Acosta,
     on behalf of the Council, was renegotiating the
     Council's contract with Mr. Ashe. That Mr. Ashe
     complained to Acosta that he thought it was improper
     for him to be running a thrift store in direct
     competition with the Council's thrift stores and that
     he used that fact, among others, to help him to
     renegotiate his American Way Thrift Stores contract
     with the Council. The new American Way Thrift Stores
     contract became operational July 1, 1991, resulting in
     more than $100,000 a year reduction in the amount Mr.
     Ashe paid to the Council under the original contract.
          15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
     therefore alleges that Acosta has been running and
     representing to the public that Helping Hands Thrift
     Store is owned and operated by the Council, and by and
     through such fraudulent misrepresentation, made profits
     that rightly belong to plaintiff. That an accounting of
     such illegally obtained profits must be had in order to
     determine the exact amount of such illegally obtained
     profits and damages.
     
          Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against
     defendants Robert Acosta, Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
     and each of them, as follows:
          a. For compensatory damages according to proof;
          b. For exemplary damages according to proof;
          c. For attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Code
     of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;
          d. For prejudgment interest to the extent
     allowable under section 3287 or 3288 of the Civil Code;
          e. For such other relief and damages as the court
     deems just and proper in the premises.

     This is what the Complaint says, and it boggles the mind.
The Monitor has repeatedly tried to call Mr. Acosta for comment,
but we only get his answering machine. Therefore, the documents
must speak for themselves. 
     In view of the charges and the circumstances surrounding
them, certain questions inevitably occur. Since the charges
against Acosta were well known and a matter of public record when
he was expelled from the National Federation of the Blind in
1978, why did the California Council of the Blind elect and re-
elect him term after term? Why did the American Council of the
Blind make him an officer and one of their principal leaders? Why
did ALL elect him their president? Why were auditors and
officials of the California Council of the Blind not aware of the
details of what is now being revealed? If they were aware, why
did they not blow the whistle sooner? Why did cash draws in the
amount of more than $10,000 (draws that were made with no
receipts or explanations) go unchallenged when they were
obviously apparent? Why was action not taken against the Helping
Hands For The Blind corporation, and is it (as we have been told)
still operating and raising funds? Why was action not taken when
Helping Hands For The Blind began sending fundraising letters to
blind persons throughout the country, a fact that was widely
known? What is the full extent of the Helping Hands For The Blind
operation, who is it really benefitting, and is the California
Attorney General or others taking remedial steps? Why did the
office of the California Attorney General not take action upon
learning of the facts that have been revealed instead of saying
that they would need an outside person to make a written
complaint? Why was the lawsuit not filed last fall in accord with
the vote taken at the November board meeting instead of in April,
more than five months later?
     Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is not
just the American Council of the Blind or its California
affiliate that is hurt. All of us are hurt--organizations of the
blind, agencies for the blind, and individual blind people.
Certainly the American Council of the Blind will find this
situation embarrassing, but we must maintain perspective. I for
one have found nothing but honesty and fairness in my dealings
with ACB's president, LeRoy Saunders. I believe I would have the
same experience in contacting many other ACB leaders. Neither the
ACB nor its individual members can be blamed for the failings of
one person, or even one leader. They can be blamed, however, if
they fail to take proper action once the circumstances are known.
The fact that Mr. Acosta is no longer an ACB national officer
speaks for itself. But the fact that he was elected and was
recognized as a leader year after year also speaks for itself.
Something else is worth noting. We are told that phone number
(818) 341-8217 rings in Mr. Acosta's home in Chatsworth,
California. If this is true, it is troubling--especially in view
of an item carried in the May, 1994, Braille Forum, the
publication of the American Council of the Blind. Here it is:



          Cookbook Of The Month: Helping Hands For the Blind
     has formed a "Cookbook of the Month" club, which is
     currently producing Braille cookbooks on various food
     items. For more information, call (818) 341-8217, or
     write to Helping Hands For The Blind, 20734C Devonshire
     Street, Chatsworth, California 91311.

     Although this notice is carried in the Braille Forum, it is
not absolutely and finally conclusive. It is possible (though
difficult to accept) that the editors of the magazine did not
know about Mr. Acosta's circumstances and his relationship with
Helping Hands For The Blind. Even if they did know, it is
possible (though, again, difficult to accept) that ACB's elected
officers did not know that the Helping Hands item would be
published in their magazine--especially, since they could (and
probably should) have taken steps to prevent this. There comes a
time when responsibility must be accepted. 
     None of us should take joy in the shocking story of lavish
living and limousines that has been revealed. Again, it must be
emphasized that nobody gains and everybody loses. Rather than
feel satisfaction or point fingers, we should consider the damage
that has been done and how to mitigate it. Among the essentials
in the process are accountability, organizational maturity, and
lack of recrimination.

