         NAC IN THE DEATH THROES: THE PASSING OF AN ERA
            An Address Delivered by Kenneth Jernigan
      Executive Director, National Federation of the Blind
                    At the Annual Convention
              New Orleans, Louisiana, July 4, 1991

     When the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) came into being over a
quarter of a century ago, it was clear from the circumstances of
its creation, the nature of its operation, and the behavior of
the people who were running it, that we were either going to have
to reform it or kill it. It was also equally clear that reform
was extremely unlikely. I remember those days very vividly. 
     In 1965 Dr. tenBroek and I attended a national meeting of
home teachers in Denver, and a representative of the committee
which was forming NAC was chairing the session. The teachers
wanted to vote on an issue affecting them and were bluntly told
no. The NAC representative said that he would be glad to report
their views but that voting was not part of the process. Later in
1965 Dr. tenBroek and I attended a so-called consensus meeting in
New York and saw closed meetings, heads of agencies for the blind
turned away at the door, and such other arbitrary behavior that
the word "consensus" was a bad joke. Nevertheless, in 1966 when I
was asked to serve on the newly established NAC board, Dr.
tenBroek and I decided that I should do it, if for nothing else
to show that we were willing to go beyond the requirements of
reason to try to find harmony and understanding.
     The period from then to now is well-known history. From the
very beginning NAC excluded the representatives of the blind from
its meetings even though our programs and our lives were being
discussed. We invited NAC's president to our 1971 convention at
Houston--and he came, the very personification of arrogance and
insensitivity. Nevertheless, we treated him with courtesy and
listened respectfully to what he had to say. When, later that
year, we asked that only two representatives of the blind be
permitted to attend a NAC board meeting as silent observers with
a pledge to say not a single word but just to listen, our request
was rejected with ridicule and scorn. Beyond that, when I tried
(in what had been an agreement of reciprocity for the
presentation made by NAC's president at Houston) to make a
statement to the NAC board, I was publicly attacked and abused,
as was the Federation as an organization. At this stage I
withdrew from the NAC board, and a new phase of our contact with
the organization began.
     NAC's highpoint probably occurred in the early 1970s. It was
not only receiving money from the American Foundation for the
Blind but also from the federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration--but by mid-decade its federal funding had been
withdrawn. In the early seventies it claimed that it would soon
have most of the more than five hundred eligible agencies for the
blind in the country as accredited members, but ten years later
the momentum was gone. In the 1980s NAC was fighting a defensive
action, and by 1990 it was losing agencies.
     Meanwhile throughout the seventies and eighties the blind of
the nation settled down for the long war. Wherever NAC went, we
went. We picketed, presented ourselves at NAC board meetings to
demand admittance, and relentlessly exposed the sham and
shoddiness of NAC's accreditation procedures and standards. From
the picket lines and demonstrations came spontaneous songs about
NAC. There was a confrontation at NAC headquarters in New York in
1973 with a coffin, the hanging of NAC in effigy, a symbolic
burial, and appropriate news coverage. Many of us in this
audience were there. We not only carried the message to NAC but
also to the public. With notable exceptions the NAC-accredited
agencies (far from being models of excellence) had the
reputation, as they still do, of being the worst in the nation.
There were the scandals at the Minneapolis Society for the Blind,
the Cleveland Society for the Blind, the Florida School for the
Deaf and the Blind, the Alabama School for the Deaf and the
Blind, and others.  In the late 1980s the American Foundation for
the Blind, which had always provided around fifty percent of
NAC's budget, told NAC that it must either reform or be cut off
at the pockets. In a scramble for survival NAC (one of whose
long-time supporters, Grant Mack, was a member of the board of
National Industries for the Blind) got that organization to
pledge funds, but the show was coming to an end. Late last year,
in an act of desperation, NAC apparently decided that if it
couldn't get agencies for the blind to accredit voluntarily, it
would force them to do it. It hired a lobbyist and tried to get
Congress, when reauthorizing the federal Rehabilitation Act, to
require that an agency must be NAC-accredited in order to receive
federal funding.
     This was finally too much. The sheltered shops rebelled; the
federal/state rehabilitation programs rebelled; and the blind had
already been rebelling. The end was clearly in sight. In
desperation Grant Mack (the chairman of NAC's Committee on the
Advancement of Accreditation) started to go state by state (in
what one official of the American Foundation for the Blind wryly
called "the Grant Mack road show") to drum up support. But it was
too late. NAC backed away from its attempt to tie the receipt of
federal funds to accreditation. It didn't matter.
     What had been only a sham and a charade now became a trashy
melodrama. In December of last year at a Grant Mack road show in
Chicago, Mack tore a microphone from the hands of Steve Hastalis,
a reporter for the Braille Monitor, and threw it to the floor,
breaking it to pieces. When Mack was taken by the police in a
paddy wagon for questioning, he tried to bluff it out. Then came
the most bizarre behavior of all.
     As reported in the May, 1991, Braille Monitor, Mack was
summoned to appear in the Chicago courts on the criminal charge
of battery. Mack didn't show but was represented by a lawyer,
George Weaver. Ever since, the story has circulated that Mack
says that the charges were dropped. This flies in the face of the
warrant which was issued by the judge on February 11, 1991, for
Grant Mack's arrest and which is still outstanding.
     When contradictory claims are made, it is not always
possible to be sure who is telling the truth; but when the truth
can be determined beyond doubt, it is helpful in judging past and
future assertions. Here is a letter from Grant Mack's lawyer 
printed in the May-June, 1991, Braille Forum as fact. It appears
in an article entitled "Chicago Charges Against Grant 
Mack Gone With the Wind." This is a word-for-word quote of the
lawyer's letter:

                              Re: Proceedings in the Circuit
                                  Court of Cook County

Dear Grant:
     As I have previously advised you I appeared in court on your
behalf on January 3 and filed our motion to quash the summons
that had not been personally served upon you. The court granted
my motion to quash the summons and further gave the state until
February 11, 1991 to personally serve you with the summons. The
Court further ordered that if personal service was not so
obtained, that the action would be dismissed without the
necessity of our appearing in Court.
     Since we understand that you have not been personally
served, there should be no further proceedings relative to this
matter. I might further add that it is my opinion that not only
are the allegations of the complainant ludicrous from a factual
standpoint, even if accepted as being true, that does not set
forth legal grounds for charging you with any criminal offense.
     It has been my pleasure assisting you in this matter.

                              Very Truly Yours,
                              George Weaver, Esq.

     Peggy Pinder, who is an attorney and also Second Vice
President of the National Federation of the Blind, was present in
the court on both January 3, 1991, and February 11, 1991. She
tells me that the court did not grant Mr. Weaver's motion to
quash the summons; that the judge did not say he would dismiss
the action if Mr. Mack or his lawyer did not appear on February
11; that Mr. Weaver, who had tried to "smart off" to the judge,
said he would not come back on February 11 and indeed did not do
so; and that the judge, who seemed less than pleased, issued a
warrant for Mack's arrest, which warrant is still outstanding.
     What is the truth? Are we to believe a letter from an
unknown lawyer in Chicago, or are we to believe Peggy Pinder and
an official document of the court? Here is the exact language of
the arrest warrant, a warrant which is still in effect:

                     In The Circuit Court of
                      Cook County, Illinois

People of the State of Illinois
vs. 
Mack

Case No. 90-122467

                         Arrest Warrant

     People of the State of Illinois to all peace officers in the
state--Greetings:
     We command you to arrest Grant Mack (Defendant) for the
offense of Chapter 38, Section 123 (Battery). Stated in a charge
now pending before this court and that you bring him before the
Circuit Court of Cook County at Branch 134, 155 West 51st Street,
or, if I am absent or unable to act, the nearest or most
accessible court in Cook County or, if this warrant is executed
in a county other than Cook, before the nearest or most
accessible judge in the county where the arrest is made.

Issued in Cook County
February 11, 1991
Bail Fixed at $3,000

            Information and Description of Defendant

     Name: Grant Mack; Alias: ---; Residence: 2224 Panorama Way,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84124; Sex: Male; Race: White; Weight: 170;
Height: 5 feet, 7 inches; Age: 58.

     So reads the arrest warrant--and without belaboring the
matter further, let me just say that if Mr. Mack will let us know
when he plans next to be in Illinois, we will be glad to inform
the judge, who will probably be happy to give him a little time--
unless, of course, Mack wishes to spring for the $3,000 bail
which has been set.
     NAC's luck seems to have run out in 1991. On February 21
National Industries for the Blind officially declared that it
would stop further funding of NAC after June of this year.
Shortly thereafter it was learned that the American Foundation
for the Blind had made the same decision. On April 7 NAC's board
met in what must have been the most distasteful gathering it had
ever held. First an attempt was made to reduce costs and
streamline NAC's operation. The motion lost by a vote of ten to
four. Then a motion was made "that the board of directors
recommend to the membership... that NAC dissolve no later than
May 31, 1991...." This motion carried by a vote of twelve to two.
     A memorandum to NAC-accredited agencies and members from
Joseph E. Champagne dated April 12, 1991, said in part: "On April
7, 1991 the board of directors of the National Accreditation
Council met to discuss the future of NAC given the financial
exigencies that have developed as a result of the decision of the
National Industries for the Blind to discontinue financial
support beyond June 30, 1991. Similar action is expected from the
American Foundation for the Blind since the two support programs
were linked. Therefore NAC does not have the financial resources
to conduct business as usual beyond June 30, 1991. As a result,
and after many hours of deliberation, the NAC board adopted a
resolution to recommend to the membership that NAC be dissolved
as of May 31, 1991, its financial obligations met to the extent
feasible, and that every attempt be made to transfer its assets
and mission to another entity or coalition of entities so that
the valued and essential process of accreditation can be resumed
but under new and more financially stable auspices."
     After explaining that the board did not have the legal power
to dissolve NAC, a decision which could only be made by the
membership, Champagne went on to say: "I am calling a special
meeting of the membership for Sunday, May 5, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to
be held at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Hotel at the La Guardia
Airport in New York. I anticipate the meeting to be over by 1:00
p.m.... I urge each of you to attend or vote by proxy." 
     A proxy was included with the Champagne memo, but in usual
NAC fashion it had been incorrectly drawn. So a new proxy had to
be sent. Also in traditional NAC style the May 5 meeting was held
in NAC's  business-as-usual, high-handed manner. Melody Lindsey
is a member of the board of directors of the Florida School for
the Deaf and the Blind, a NAC-accredited agency, and Seville
Allen is the chairperson of the board of the Virginia Department
for the Visually Handicapped, also a NAC-accredited agency.
     Both Ms. Allen and Ms. Lindsey went to New York on May 5 to
attend the NAC board meeting. They were told that they would not
be permitted to come into the meeting unless they signed a
statement that they were visitors. When they objected on the
grounds that they were board members of NAC-accredited agencies,
they were treated with rudeness and ordered to sit in the back of
the room. As best they could determine, only ten people were
present who voted. Voting was done by show of hands, and Seville
Allen and Melody Lindsey, being blind, could not tell who voted
for or against dissolving NAC. Joseph Champagne, who chaired the
meeting, said that (including the proxies) fifty-three votes were
cast in favor of continuing NAC and forty-eight votes were cast
in favor of dissolving NAC. The proxies were not publicly
counted, nor were Seville Allen or Melody Lindsey permitted to
examine them even though they asked to do so. There were four so-
called "visitors" in the back of the room, including the two
already mentioned. In view of NAC's often repeated claims of
professionalism and its constant self-praise about the quality of
its services to the blind and its ethics, it is instructive to
examine Seville Allen's sworn statement concerning the tone and
conduct of the May 5 meeting. Her affidavit says in part:

     The meeting began at approximately 9:00 a.m., and the
spokesperson identified himself as Joe Champagne, the NAC board
chairman. He stated that the meeting was for one purpose and one
purpose only and that was to vote whether or not to dissolve the
NAC corporation.... He then called for the vote of the people in
the room by a showing of hands and counted those for and against
dissolving NAC. There was mumbling going on in the front of the
room, and I could not hear what they said. Then the vote was
announced, and Joe Champagne said there were fifty-three agencies
against dissolving NAC and forty-eight for. I did not see any
proxies, and I did not see them counted. I observed that ten
people voted in the room. He announced that the agency was not
dissolved, and the meeting was immediately adjourned. Then he
announced the executive committee would meet later in the
morning. Everyone left the room with the exception of the four of
us sitting in the designated visitor's space. Briefcases were
left in the front of the room, giving the impression that the
executive committee meeting would be held in that room.
     Dennis Hartenstine walked over to where the four of us were
sitting and stated that the executive committee meeting would
start in approximately five minutes and that the four of us were
to leave the room. Two people left, and Melody Lindsey and I
remained in our seats. Dennis walked toward us and asked me if I
was leaving.
     I said that I was not, that I was going to stay and observe
the meeting since I was the chairman of the board of an
accredited agency. He insisted that we had to leave. I remained
in my chair. He said that they had opened the membership meeting,
which they had not planned to do, but the executive committee was
closed to all but the executive committee. I stated that we were
interested persons from boards of accredited agencies and that we
planned to stay and observe the proceedings of the executive
committee meeting. Melody Lindsey said that she was from the
board of an accredited agency and that she was therefore
interested in seeing what NAC planned to do.
     Dennis asked me if I intended to make an issue of attending.
I said that I did not plan to make an issue; I planned to sit
quietly in my chair and observe. He said that corporate members
are not invited to the executive committee meeting, and I said
that they could be.... He stated that he would not carry on a
conversation with me. I did not respond to that. He angrily
stated that since I would not listen to him, he would have the
hotel security come in and have a conversation with me and
perhaps I would listen to the hotel security. I did not respond.
I remained in my seat, and he left the room, yelling and closing
the door.
     Melody Lindsey and I remained in the room an additional
forty minutes. No one from hotel security appeared. However,
during the forty minutes a woman entered, came to the back of the
room next to where I was sitting, told me that my cane was lying
on the floor, picked it up, and handed it to me.
     I said, "thank you." The woman left. After she left, someone
else came in, walked around the front of the room, then left. I
walked around and checked, and the briefcases were gone. Several
times someone opened the doors and closed them again.
     After the forty-minute wait we left the meeting room, and as
we walked toward the elevator, we observed that the NAC meeting
was being held in another meeting room. Apparently NAC officials
had slipped into the meeting room, quietly retrieved briefcases
and other belongings, and adjourned to other quarters--all
without saying a word to us. This deliberate deception practiced
against blind individuals who were not in a position to observe
the clandestine behavior is noteworthy from an agency which
purports to set standards to govern agencies for the blind. This
behavior is an example of the reason that Melody Lindsey and I
were concerned over the planned future actions of NAC.

     That is the sworn statement of Seville Allen, and that is
also the shabby behavior of the organization which claims to set
standards and act as a role model for ethical behavior in the
blindness field.
     It is clear that there were deep divisions in the NAC board-
-for the president, Joseph Champagne, and the vice president,
Evelyn Ullman, resigned at the closed executive committee meeting
from which Seville Allen and Melody Lindsey were excluded. It is
also obvious who the two people were who voted at the April 7,
1991, NAC board meeting to continue to fight on instead of
dissolving NAC, and who now control what is left of NAC. They can
be none other than Dr. N. Edd Miller (a total outsider, who is
probably well-intentioned but knows nothing whatever about
blindness and the problems in the blindness field) and Dr.
Richard Welch (a staunch advocate of custodialism, who has
repeatedly demonstrated that he is no friend of independent blind
persons, especially those who have the impertinence to organize
and speak for themselves).
     All of this is shown in a memorandum sent on April 16, 1991,
from Dr. Welch to the NAC agencies and members. In that document
he said in part: "As a member of the board, I voted against this
resolution [the April 7 resolution to dissolve NAC] because I
think there is a way to keep accreditation by NAC available and
because I think we absolutely need to maintain a specialized
accreditation process in our field. I am sharing my thinking with
you in the hope that you might be persuaded to not dissolve the
National Accreditation Council and the important and effective
service it provides. I am joined in this appeal by Dr. N. Edd
Miller, an experienced accreditation professional from outside
our field who has served in recent years as the chairman of NAC's
Commission on Accreditation."
     In his April 16 memo Dr. Welch went on to explain what he
thought could be done to keep NAC alive--and beyond that, make it
more to his liking. It could, in effect, flee from the city,
where it had lost the battle, and retreat into the hills to carry
on long-term guerilla warfare and continue to cause divisiveness
in the blindness field. The staff could be reduced to a skeletal
remainder, and a small group of "old boy," hand-picked volunteers
could carry on the bitterness, remember nonexistent pretended
glory, and hope for a miracle that would bring better days--in
short, live in a world of lost dreams and might-have-beens. It is
not difficult to read through the niceties of phraseology in the
Welch memo. Here is what he says:

     In my view, the way for NAC to survive is for it to
streamline its accreditation process and its organizational
structure to the point where it can operate within the level of
revenues that can be generated by dues alone. If this can be
done, NAC would be removed from the situation in which it is
dependent on other organizations and other factors for its
funding, factors which have no direct relevance to accreditation.
     For this to work, a dues increase of ten to twenty percent,
depending on the size of the agency's budget, would be necessary.
As the process is streamlined, the cost to the accredited
agencies of the self-study and the on-site review visit would be
reduced, softening the impact of increased dues. Similarly, the
review and decision-making process by the Commission on
Accreditation could also be reduced and made more affordable. The
Commission on Accreditation might also take on the policy-making
function for the organization, making a large board unnecessary.
     Such a streamlined process [Dr. Welch continued] would
require less staff to manage it. One accreditation professional,
one secretary, and a part-time bookkeeper would be all that would
be necessary.... The growing cadre of experienced and
enthusiastic volunteers who have been doing on-site reviews for
NAC for many years could manage staffless on-site review teams
under most circumstances, could work with new agencies applying
for accreditation, and could participate in other special
projects such as promoting programmatic accreditation.
     If its current lease could be re-negotiated, NAC's office
could move out of New York.... With a reduced staff, less
expensive space could be rented elsewhere, perhaps in-kind
services could be provided in the form of donated space in
another organization.

     This is the Welch memo, and it is not hard to read between
the lines. NAC has always operated with as much secrecy as
possible. Its real landlord is not the owner of the New York
building in which it occupies space but another tenant. It
subleases from the New York New Jersey Trail Conference, and that
organization has expressed considerable concern that NAC might
simply pack up and skip town regardless of the thousands of
dollars remaining on its lease. Officials of the Trail Conference
indicated no knowledge of some of NAC's perturbations and showed
a good deal of unease at what might await them.
     Officials of the Trail Conference said that Dennis
Hartenstine, who left NAC employment at the end of May, indicated
that he thought the rest of the NAC board (besides Miller and
Welch, of course) would probably resign during the summer and
that, as he put it, an "associated committee of supporters" would
be stepping in as the new board at a meeting in late July or
early August. A Trail Conference official also said that
Hartenstine indicated that NAC had been offered a small amount of
space at no cost in Washington, D.C., increasing the jumpiness of
the Trail Conference official.
     Be this as it may, Dr. Miller (or, more probably, the real
boss, Dr. Welch, speaking in the name of Dr. Miller) lost no time
in contacting NAC's members, a number of whom are said to be
requesting a return of all or part of the money they have paid to
NAC for current dues. Under date of May 6, 1991, Miller (or Welch
speaking in the name of Miller) sent a memo to the shrinking NAC
flock to give courage and boost morale. Miller outlined his
version  (or, perhaps more realistically, Dr. Welch's version) of
what had occurred at the meeting the day before. He then
concluded by saying:
     "I am pleased to be able to communicate this information to
you. The threatened loss of NAC's specialized accreditation
process has created the opportunity for the development of an
accreditation program that will efficiently and effectively meet
the needs and requests of the accredited members, sponsors,
volunteers, and consumers of services for persons who are blind
and visually impaired. I look forward to being a part of this
worthwhile effort, and working with all of you as we achieve our
goals."
     Meanwhile (just a day later) on May 7, 1991, the Advisory
Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility of the
federal Department of Education was scheduled to consider NAC's
petition to continue to be recognized by the Secretary of
Education as an accrediting agency, but in view of its chaotic
state and desperate situation NAC had petitioned the Committee to
postpone consideration of its status until a later time. I
appeared before the Committee on behalf of the National
Federation of the Blind to urge that NAC not be allowed to avoid
the inevitable by hiding behind delay--but NAC used the dodge of
not showing up at all, so consideration of its status was put
over until the fall meeting. However, I was permitted to talk
briefly with the Committee and to distribute literature to them,
which in the circumstances I believe they will read. I was also
assured that, regardless of the excuse, NAC would not be able to
get a delay beyond the fall meeting of the Committee. At that
time NAC must either stand and deliver or face the consequences--
and you may rest assured that we will be present to press our
case.
     In the time I was allowed to speak I pointed out to the
Committee that NAC does not now meet, and probably never has met,
the requirements of the Department of Education to be recognized
as an accrediting agency. The criteria for recognition include
nine major points, and NAC fails to meet the standards in at
least three respects: Accreditation is not required for programs
or students to receive federal assistance in the blindness field;
NAC is not generally accepted in the blindness field; and NAC
does not have the resources to carry out its activities. Assuming
NAC's ghost is still alive in the fall, we will see how it
defends itself before the Committee.
     In considering NAC's nonperformance and the controversy
surrounding it during the past year, you have to wonder why any
self-respecting agency doing work with the blind would be willing
to continue to have its name associated with NAC, and I doubt
that many of them will--at least, not for much longer. For a
quarter of a century NAC and its supporters have bullied and
threatened, tried to force agencies to join them by implying that
those who would not would be branded as substandard, used
accreditation as a shield to protect the poorest agencies in the
field, and sought to build an empire of custody and control--but
they have failed, utterly failed. They are bankrupt, not only
financially but also morally and spiritually. They are a blight
upon the field of work with the blind, the largest remaining
controversial issue to cause strife and dissension.
     As we approach the beginning of the twenty-first century,
the blind of this country confidently look forward to a day at
hand when we can truly have first-class citizenship and real
equality in society, just like the rest--when we can have a good-
paying job and the joys of a home and a family of our own, just
like the rest--when we can hold our heads high in self-respect
and the respect of others, just like the rest--when we can earn
our way and pay our dues and live our freedom, just like the
rest--when we can wake in the morning without fear or poverty,
just like the rest--when we can hope and believe and dream, just
like the rest--and especially when whatever we have is ours as a
matter of right, whether it be great or small, not a dole
portioned out to us by agencies like NAC, who mislead the public,
live at our expense, and act as if they are our superiors, which
they are certainly not. We look forward to that day, and we
intend to have it because we have found the power of collective
action. We have found, we have created, we have lived the
National Federation of the Blind. And one of the things we
absolutely will put behind us forever is the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped. No more NAC. My brothers and my sisters, our future
is bright with promise. Let us go with joy to meet it.
