




























THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR                                                              NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
National Federation of the                                                         U.S. Postage Paid
  Blind of Maryland                                                                Baltimore, MD
9736 Basket Ring Road                                                              Permit No. 7532
Columbia, MD 21045




                                          Address Correction Requested

                                            THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR

                                              Al Maneki, Editor

                                              Summer/Fall 1992

The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, is
a non-profit organization of blind people whose purpose is to promote equal opportunities for the blind.  We
provide advocacy services for the blind, special training programs for parents of blind children, job referrals
and placements for the blind, public  education programs, scholarships to blind students, and help the newly
blinded to acquire special techniques for maintaining productive lives.

Please address inquiries to:              Please send donations to:

NFB of Maryland                           NFB of Maryland
9736 Basket Ring Road                     11909 Coronada Place
Columbia, MD 21045                        Kensington, MD 20895
phone (410)992-9608

The Braille Spectator is published quarterly for members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Maryland and others who share an interest in the work of this organization.  The recorded edition, available
on cassette, can be obtained from the editor upon request.  Cassettes may be returned to the National Center
for the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230.

Changes of address and additions to the circulation list should be sent to the editor.  Address all news items,
articles and letters to the editor.

                                             Al Maneki, Editor                              
                                            The Braille Spectator
                                            9736 Basket Ring Road
                                             Columbia, MD 21045
                                                                   
Officers:                                                                           Members of the Board
                                                                                      of Directors:
Sharon Maneki, President
  Columbia, Maryland                                                                Ken Canterbery
Eileen Rivera, First Vice                                                             Essex, Maryland
  President                                                                         Ronald Coleman
  Baltimore, Maryland                                                                 Silver Spring, Maryland
Barry Hond, Second Vice                                                             Jean Faulkner
  President                                                                           Cumberland, Maryland
  Baltimore, Maryland                                                               Fred Flowers
Debbie Brown, Secretary                                                               Baltimore, Maryland
  Rockville, Maryland                                                               Blanche Payne
Judy Rasmussen, Treasurer                                                             Baltimore, Maryland
  Kensington, Maryland                                                              Brenda Williams,
                                                The Braille Spectator
Summer/Fall                                                                                                      1992

                         The Newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland


                                               See Calendar on Page 13


WHAT PRICE LITERACY?
REFLECTIONS ON THE BATTLE

by Sharon Maneki

On May 12, 1992, a group of jubilant Federationists traveled to Annapolis to take part in the ceremony in
which Governor William Donald Schaefer signed the Literacy Rights And Education Act For Blind And
Visually Impaired Students into law. Delegate Sheila Hixson and Senator Arthur Dorman, the bill's prime
sponsors, also took part in the ceremony to share in our victory.  This was a momentous occasion not only
for the blind of Maryland, but also for the blind of the nation.  Under this law, a blind or visually impaired
student's need for Braille shall be presumed when developing the Individualized Education Program; the
student's current and future literacy needs must be considered; Braille is not required when it has been
determined that the student does not need it; requirements for the certification and recertification of vision
teachers shall be strengthened; and the Maryland State Department of Education shall coordinate the
availability of textbooks in non-visually accessible formats.  

The road to victory was a long and difficult one.  The tried and true methods of the National Federation of
the Blind once again proved effective.  They enabled us to win the right for blind children to have the same
opportunity for literacy skills that sighted children have.  We in the National Federation of the Blind have
the responsibility to address critical issues that affect blind persons.  We are persistent.  We recognize the
value of collective action.  

The National Federation of the Blind is a pro-active organization that responds to the needs of blind persons
and never evades its responsibility.  Throughout the 1980's, we listened bitterly as blind adults who grew up
as visually impaired children constantly express their frustration at their lack of Braille skills.  We shared the
anguish of parents whose pleas for instruction in Braille for their blind children were denied by vision
teachers and school officials.  We could not understand why Barbara and John Cheadle had to go through two
years of due process procedures in order to obtain Braille instruction for their son Charles.  It took the
concerted efforts of parents of blind children and blind persons in the National Federation of the Blind to
correct this unacceptable situation.  As it turned out, much persistence would be needed to change the
attitudes of educators and to win the hearts of legislators on the importance of Braille.  

One of the best vehicles for change is legislation.  In 1986, the NFB of Maryland was the first affiliate to ask
its state legislature to enact legislation to ensure Braille literacy for blind and visually impaired students.  This
legislation quickly became embroiled in controversy due to the opposition of the Maryland School for the
Blind.  Although this initial effort was unsuccessful, we continued to take every opportunity to bring the
Braille issue to the attention of legislators, educators and the general public.  Day by day, year by year, we
made progress.  By 1991, we had changed attitudes sufficiently so that consumers and educators could begin
to negotiate the terms for a literacy bill.  Although the consumers made several concessions to the Department
of Education, the Department's support remained luke-warm, and it could never state its position on the
language of the proposed bill with any degree of certainty.  Regardless of the Department's position and
intentions, we proceeded with our plans to have a literacy bill introduced in the 1992 session of the General
Assembly.  House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced with 32 House sponsors and 13 Senate
sponsors.  

Only prior to the hearing of SB 389 before the Senate Economic and Environmental Affairs Committee did
we learn of the Department of Education's proposed amendment which would eliminate one of the bill's major
points.  The Maryland State Department of Education argued that the "presumption of Braille" clause of our
bill conflicted with the requirement of federal law to develop the Individual Education Program for each
student.  We argued that this clause was not a violation of federal law, that a presumption already exists, and
that presumption is print.  The Attorney General of Maryland issued an opinion agreeing with our position. 
We persisted with our efforts well beyond the committee hearings and ceased our activity only when the final
victorious vote had been recorded.  

While individuals can sometimes cause change, it takes collective action to move mountains.  Success with
a Braille literacy bill in one state provides the impetus for the passage of similar bills in other states.  The
successful passage of literacy bills in Kansas, Texas and several other states helped us achieve our success
in Maryland.  The Maryland Attorney General's opinion on the presumption issue will help affiliates in other
states win this argument.  The advantage of a national organization to develop model legislation and to assist
its state affiliates with securing the passage of legislation is extremely important.  Just as we developed a
model white cane law which was passed in every state during the 1950's and 1960's, we will pass Braille
literacy legislation in every state in the 1990's.  

As we move from the law making phase to the law enforcement phase of our struggle for literacy in
Maryland, we must work to develop adequate regulations to determine which students should learn Braille
and to establish standards of Braille competency for vision teachers.  Let us go forward with hope and
encouragement based on the victories that we have achieved.  We must not abandon our responsibility to
ensure that blind and visually impaired children are adequately taught the skills of literacy.  Parents who ask
for Braille instruction for their blind children now have the force of law to back up their request.  Parents
should be persistent in their request for Braille instruction.  Parents may be assured that they are not fighting
this battle alone.  Through the collective action of the National Federation of the Blind, every blind and
visually impaired child will regain his right to literacy and education.  



                                            THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RULING

        The following statement was issued by the Attorney General of Maryland to Delegate Anne Scarlett Perkins,
        Chairman of the House Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee on March 11, 1992:  

You have asked for advice as to whether House Bill 859, (Senate Bill 389 is similar to House Bill 859) which
establishes a presumption that proficiency in braille is essential to enable certain students to communicate
effectively and efficiently, is pre-empted by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  

House Bill 859 provides, in relevant part:  

"(b)(1) In developing the Individualized Education program for each blind or visually impaired student, it
shall be presumed that proficiency in braille reading and writing is essential to enable the student to
communicate effectively and efficiently.  

(2) A student may not be denied the opportunity for instruction in braille reading and writing solely because
the student has some remaining vision.  

(3) This section does not require the exclusive use of braille if other reading and writing media are appropriate
to the student's educational needs.  The use of other reading and writing media does not preclude the use of
braille or the instruction of braille."  

The bill goes on to provide that braille instruction is not required if all members of the individualized
education program team concur "that the student's visual impairment does not affect the student's reading and
writing performance."  

This bill was requested by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland which has expressed the view
that braille instruction is not made available in many cases where it is appropriate, including cases where the
child has some residual vision but not enough to permit them to read large print proficiently, and where the
child has residual vision currently but is expected to experience deterioration of that vision.  

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. 1400, et. seq., was enacted:  

"to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them ... a free appropriate public education
which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that
the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected ... and to assess and assure
the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities." 20 U. S. C. 1400 (c).  

and was designed to address a situation where one million children with disabilities were excluded from public
education, and more than half of all children with disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services. 
20 U. S. C. 1400 (b) (3) and (4).  

The federal Act requires that any state receiving federal funds under the Act must establish, review and revise
as necessary an individualized education program for each child with a disability.  20 U. S. C. 1414 (a) (5). 
And "individualized education program" means 

"a written statement for each child with a disability developed in any meeting by a representative of the local
education agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified to provide, or supervise the
provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, the teacher,
the parent or guardian of such child, and, whenever appropriate, such child, which statement shall include 

(A) a statement of the present levels of educational performance of such child, 

(B) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives, 

(C) a statement of specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such
child will be able to participate in regular educational programs, 

(D) a statement of the needed transition services ... 

(E) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such services, and 

(F) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an
annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved."  

It has been argued that a presumption that each blind and visually impaired student should receive instruction
in reading and writing braille conflicts with the requirement that an educational program be designed to meet
each individual student's unique needs.  However, the bill does not in any way prevent the individualized
education program process from taking place.  Nor does it prohibit any specific type of instruction or service
from being used if found appropriate.  Finally, the bill does not require braille instruction if the members of
the individualized education program team find that it would be inappropriate.  Thus, the bill does not prevent
development of individualized education programs, or limit the variety of services available for those
programs.  

In interpreting the federal Act the Supreme Court has held that the intent was to provide a public education,
not to guarantee any particular level of education, and that the law does not require that the program
"maximize each child's potential commensurate with the opportunity provided other children."  Board of
Education v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 198 (1982).  In the words of the Court:  

"furnishing handicapped children with only such services as are available to non-handicapped children would
in all probability fall short of the statutory requirement of 'free appropriate public education'; to require, on
the other hand, the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's
potential is, we think, further than Congress intended to go."  Id. at 198.  

By providing braille instruction except when it is found to be inappropriate, House Bill 859 goes beyond what
is required by the federal Act.  However, it is my view that the federal Act is intended to act as a floor, not
as a ceiling.  

Therefore, it is my view that House Bill 859 is not pre-empted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.  



GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTES SMALL INCREASE TO LBPH, 
DEFEATS CIVIL RIGHTS FOR DISABLED:
A REPORT ON THE 1992 SESSION

by Sharon Maneki

The 1992 session of the Maryland General Assembly was a difficult one for all concerned because of the
serious economic problems facing the state.  The Assembly not only had to come up with a balanced budget
for the next fiscal year, but also had to redo the budget for the current year to balance it against diminished
revenues. It was a very successful session for the organized blind of Maryland because of the passage of the
Literacy Rights and Education Act (see lead story in this issue).  We were also pleased to make modest gains
on filling the staff needs for the Maryland Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (LBPH).   

The LBPH has needed additional staff for many years to meet the needs of its readers.  Additional staff
positions are especially needed to prepare for the move into the new building in 1993.  In his budget,
Governor Schaefer included seven new positions for LBPH.  Instead, the Assembly approved two contractual
positions for one year.  The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland will be back at the 1993 session
to explain the need for more staff positions for this valuable program.

The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland joined other disability groups in working for the passage
of SB 526 and HB 1248, bills proposing a constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of disability.  In order to be adopted, constitutional amendments require the approval of three fifths of the
members of each house before they can be submitted to a vote in a general election.  Although this measure
passed the Senate, it failed in the House by only two votes.  

Brief mention should be made of four other bills not sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind of
Maryland, but are of interest to Spectator readers.  The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation will be renamed
as the Division of Rehabilitation Services on October 1, 1992, because of the passage of HB 251.  The
Department of Education sought this name change to reflect the inclusion of the independent living service
that is supposed to be provided to disabled persons who may not have vocational goals.  HB 411, a bill to
clarify the definition of Special Education and add a definition of related services to the special education
responsibility, died in committee.  HB 923, a bill to establish a comprehensive rehabilitation fund for
vocational rehabilitation services for accident victims, also died in committee.  Revenues for this fund would
have come from additional fines levied for traffic violations such as driving under the influence of drugs or
alcohol.  HB 974, the Maryland Civil Rights Act of 1992, passed the House, but was killed by the Senate
Judicial Proceedings Committee.  This bill would have provided additional protections against employment
discrimination by awarding compensatory damages, allowing a complainant to bring a civil action and
authorizing certain penalties to be paid to the state by companies involved in unlawful employment practices. 
We will hear more on these issues during the next session.      

I want to thank all of you for helping with our legislative effort this year.  The 1992 session of the Maryland
General Assembly was of great benefit to the blind of Maryland.



BLIND VENDOR STILL IN JAIL

by Don Morris

        From the Editor:  Sharon Maneki and members of our merchants division received the first news of
        Baltimore County's impending action against Bill Ramsey on Wednesday May 13.  The next five days of
        hectic activity resulted in a large gathering of blind persons at the meeting of the Baltimore County Council
        on Bill Ramsey's behalf.  Here are the details as presented by Don Morris, and Larry Carson of the
        Baltimore Sun.

The headline above might surprise you.  You'll be even more surprised to learn that this is good news.

Bill Ramsey, long-time vendor in the Maryland Vending Program has successfully operated the prisoner's
commissary at the Baltimore County Detention Center.  Bill has done an excellent job, receiving praise from
county officials and from satisfied customers.  That's not all.  Bill has donated television sets and other such
items to the benefit of prisoners' recreation areas and he has been an all around good citizen.

All of this aside, County officials had decided to throw Bill out of Jail and bring in another vending company
who promised to pay the county a big commission for running the place.

A reporter for the Baltimore Sun newspaper learned of the plan at a county budget meeting.  He reported
on the proposed action, and the matter was brought to the attention of the National Federation of the Blind
of Maryland's Merchants Division.  

Joe Byard, President of the NFB of Maryland's Merchants Division and George Fear, member of the
Division, called radio stations and started telling Bill's story.  The Maryland Committee of Blind Vendors
passed a motion to come to Bill's defense, but other than the motion, the Committee took no action.

Sharon Maneki learned that the county Council would be meeting on Monday, May 18, and suggested that
Federationists attend to take part in the citizens' speak-out portion of the meeting.  Because of the quick work
done by Sharon and Joe, approximately 30 blind people (blind vendors and members of the NFB) came to
the meeting.  Testimony on behalf of Bill and the vending program was provided by Sharon Maneki, Jim
Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs for the NFB and long time advocate of Blind Vendors, Joe Byard,
George Fear and Al Hill, another Maryland blind vendor.

The Council listened with interest and promised to talk to the County Executive.  On Wednesday morning,
two days after the Council meeting, County Executive Roger Hayden reaffirmed the County's satisfaction with
Bill Ramsey.  He went on to say that Baltimore County no longer has any plan to remove Bill from the
business he has built or the customers he serves.

Leadership roles in saving Bill's job were taken by the people mentioned.  However, be aware that many
more people were involved in this positive and effective action.  Letters were written, phone calls were made
and support was shown by the physical presence of blind people at the Council meeting.  To all of these folks,
CONGRATULATIONS!  And, Congratulations to Bill for staying in Jail.



BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL HEARS APPEAL TO KEEP BLIND
VENDOR

by Larry Carson

                               Reprinted from the Baltimore Sun, Tuesday, May 19, 1992

A group of about 20 blind people went before the Baltimore County Council last night to ask that Bill
Ramsey, a 52-year-old blind vendor, not be forced out of his business of operating a snack and toiletry shop
in the county's detention center in Towson.

The administration of County Executive Roger B. Hayden is considering a proposal to hire another
contractorwho is not blindto run the stand in exchange for a percentage of the profits.

"Where is it going to stop?" asked Alfred Hill, who is legally blind and operates a similar stand at the Social
Security Administration in Woodlawn.

Sharon Maneki, president of the Maryland chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, told the council
that replacing Mr. Ramsey with another private contractor who is promising to pay the county part of his
profits would "set a dangerous precedent, and will weaken the program for the blind."

James Gashel, another federation officer, said unemployment runs around 70 percent among the blind, and
that 4,000 blind vendors compose the largest single employment group among people with the disability
nationally.  The vendors operate in many public buildings under a 1936 federal law that created the blind
vendors program.  

"He's not just another contract vendor," Mr. Gashel said of Mr. Ramsey.



MONTGOMERY COUNTY VOTES TO KEEP 
SEPARATE VISION PROGRAM FOR ONE MORE YEAR

        From the Editor:  When Kathy Tuchman attended the tour of the National Center for the Blind for parents
        of blind children on May 30, she told us of the plan of the Montgomery County school board to combine
        its educational programs for the blind and for the deaf under a single administration.  From many painful
        experiences, we have learned that the grouping of different programs for the disabled under the same
        "umbrella" does not serve the best interests of blind persons.  The blind will invariably constitute a minority
        in such aggregations, and our specialized educational requirements will often be sacrificed on the grounds
        of economy and replaced by more general but less meaningful programs.  We immediately called on the
        members of our Sligo Creek Chapter to attend the Board of Education meeting on Monday, June 1, when
        this issue would be discussed, and to ask the Board to keep a separate program for blind and visually
        impaired students.  Again, our actions made a difference, for Kathy Tuchman reported back to Lloyd
        Rasmussen that on June 10, the Montgomery County Board of Education had indeed voted to maintain a
        separate vision program for one more year.  Here is the memorandum that Lloyd Rasmussen submitted on
        June 1.  

June 1, 1992
TO: Montgomery County Board of Education
FROM: Lloyd Rasmussen, President
SUBJECT: Reorganization of Vision Program

The Sligo Creek Chapter, National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is a broad-based consumer
organization of blind people of all ages in Montgomery and northern Prince George's Counties.  As a local
chapter of NFB, we have been active participants in the formulation of educational policy, through legislation
and individual advocacy.  During the 1992 session of the Maryland General Assembly, we passed H.B. 859,
which assures that Maryland children who need instruction in Braille reading and writing will be able to get
it.  Many of our members have been blind since childhood, and have first-hand knowledge of how well or
how poorly their schooling prepared them for the responsibilities of adulthood.

It has come to my attention that the specialized programs for blind and visually impaired children are to be
merged with the programs for deaf and hard of hearing children.  This action has apparently been proposed
without consultation with the affected staff and parents.

We do not understand how combining vision and auditory programs could result in any improvement in the
educational process.  Hearing and vision losses are entirely different.  They require totally different
instructional techniques: Braille vs. American Sign Language; large print vs. lip-reading; working with
readers vs. working with interpreters; difficulties in accessing written language vs. difficulties accessing oral
communication.  How well will blind students fare when they need more Braille instruction and materials,
orientation and mobility, voice-output computers, or closed-circuit TV magnifying equipment?  Will an
administration which runs an award-winning auditory program be able to provide a good, well-rounded
education for blind and visually impaired children at the same time?

I hope that the Board of Education will not turn a deaf ear to our concerns for quality education, but have
the vision to keep these programs separate, so that they can each provide the best possible preparation for the
future deaf and blind citizens of Montgomery County.
                                                VENDORS' SUIT SETTLED

According to Don Morris, the lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind on behalf of Maryland's
blind vendors to force the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to comply with the Randolph Sheppard Act
was finally settled.  According to Morris, the settlement includes:  

(1)  The Set Aside which had been paid at 9.75% of net proceeds would immediately drop to 8.5% January
1, 1992; 7% in July, 1992; 5.5% July, 1993; 4% July 1994; 3% July 1995.  It will continue at a rate no
higher than 3% until the year 2009.

(2)  Vendor Fringe Benefits.  Each blind vendor will receive $2,000 per year to be applied to fringe benefits
of the vendor's choosinglife insurance, retirement, health insurance, etc.  This benefit will be adjusted for
inflation annually.  The fringe benefit payment is also guaranteed through the year 2009.

(3)  Kennelly Highway Vending Income.  Maryland has a very successful Highway Vending Program.  It
generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of royalties to the Program each year.  One hundred percent of
the Kennelly income will be utilized in the Maryland Vending Program.  This, likewise, is guaranteed through
the year 2009.

(4)  Withheld Set Aside.  The approximately $50,000 set aside withheld by the seventeen vendors was
refunded from the escrow account to all blind vendors in Maryland.  Fifty percent went to the seventeen
vendors who withheld and the balance was distributed to the remaining vendors.

(5)  Additionally, the seventeen vendors who refused to make set aside payments were "...released and
discharged from any and all claims for set aside for 1987 and 1988."  Furthermore, the State agrees "...not
to retaliate in retribution for their withholding set aside during that period or for participating in the lawsuit."

In exchange for the above settlement, Morris says, "we had to agree to drop the matter and keep straight faces
while the State included a disclaimer that they did not admit any wrongdoing."

Whether it is Bill Ramsey, the Montgomery County schools (see articles elsewhere in this issue) or the blind
vendors, the National Federation of the Blind is ready at a moment's notice to go to work to help blind
persons.



                                          ANNA CABLE STRONG AND WELL AT 99

On a sunny Saturday afternoon, May 23, a dozen members from the Central Maryland and Sligo Creek
Chapters brought a birthday cake, punch, cookies, coffee, and an assortment of gifts to the Columbia home
of Anna Cable to celebrate her 99th birthday, which actually occurred on June 29.  The earlier date was
chosen since most of the participants would be at our national convention on Anna's birthday.  

Everyone at the birthday party could not help but be impressed by the physical strength, mental prowess, and
zest for life shown by this magnificent woman.  She still lives independently in a home managed by Catholic
Charities.  She remembered the names of spouses and children of members of the Sligo Creek Chapter whom
she had not seen in years.  She regaled us with stories of her youth in Ohio.  A charter member of the Sligo
Creek Chapter, she recalled an earlier incident in the chapter's history, when membership had diminished and
a vote was taken to dissolve  the chapter;  she could not vote for dissolution.  The Sligo Creek Chapter has
grown and prospered ever since.

Anna learned to read Braille in her sixties and was an avid Braille reader for many years.  She was baking
cookies for Sligo Creek Chapter bake sales as late as eight years ago.  She confessed that she had to give up
writing letters on a typewriter last year, and is now forced to carry on her correspondence, including writing
periodically to a group of fifth graders, with the assistance of a reader.  

At the end of an enjoyable gathering, Anna Cable unwrapped her many birthday gifts.  Her response to a gift
certificate for dinner for four at Morgan's, donated by the Columbia Hilton, was typical:  "When do I go?" 
The certificate is valid for the next twelve months.  There is no doubt at all that Anna and her friends will
get over to Morgan's one of these days for a fine dinner.  

Happy birthday, Anna!  Our hopes and our prayers go with you.  You are an inspiration to all of us.  



AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS RECONSIDERED: 
WHEN IS IT SAFE TO CROSS?

                                                    by Al Maneki

The adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seems, in Maryland anyway, to have brought
about a renewed interest in the installation of audible traffic signals for use by blind pedestrians.  Local
transportation authorities apparently believe that they are required by the ADA to install audible traffic signals
whenever they are requested to do so by blind persons.  Except for the objections raised by the National
Federation of the Blind, very little thought is being given to the rationality, desirability or efficacy of the use
of audible traffic signals.

Most recently, an audible traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and
Cromwell Street in Montgomery County.  Officials in Baltimore County are considering the installation of
two audible traffic signals as a pilot study to determine their effectiveness.

Earlier this year, the Maryland State Highway Administration established a task force to review its policy
against recommending the installation of audible traffic signals.  The Maryland State Highway Administration
adopted this policy in 1988 at the insistence of the NFB of Maryland.  The task force is composed of a
representative from the highway administration, several blind consumers, and traffic officials from local
jurisdictions.  Sharon Maneki and Betsy Zaborowski, representing the NFB, are included among the blind
consumers.

The first and thus far only meeting of this task force was held in March.  In addition to giving the arguments
against audible traffic signals, Maneki and Zaborowski also questioned the process by which traffic authorities
arrive at the decision to install audible traffic signals.  Do the authorities use the same procedures that they
use to decide when to install ordinary traffic signals?  Are public comments solicited?  Are alternative
proposals evaluated?  Or is an audible traffic signal automatically installed upon request?  The assurances of
objectivity given by traffic officials at this meeting were less than convincing.

Bruce Magnum, traffic engineer for Montgomery County, is clearly the most knowledgeable non-blind
member of the task force on the subject of audible traffic signals.  At the March meeting, Magnum told the
task force that his county's newest audible signal, located at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and
Cromwell Street, differs from the county's other audible signals in that this new signal works as a warning
only when it is needed, and not as a continuously operating beacon.  He explained that this audible signal is
synchronized with the pedestrian activated visual "WALK" sign for crossing Massachusetts Avenue.  A
pedestrian activates the "WALK" sign by pressing a button mounted in the post of the traffic light.  When
the light turns green for Massachusetts Avenue, the visual "WALK" sign and an audible tone are
simultaneously activated, and remain turned on for seven seconds.  The pedestrian may begin crossing
Massachusetts Avenue only during this seven-second interval, but has ample time to complete the crossing
after the visual and audible "WALK" sign has terminated and before the green light has turned yellow.

Magnum further explained that the audible signal was installed at the request of a blind Montgomery County
resident who claimed that he needed the audible signal because he was unable to cross Massachusetts Avenue
early in the morning when traffic was light but moving at excessive speed.  Magnum said that when this
audible signal was installed, his office familiarized the blind person with its operation.  

Magnum and his Montgomery County colleagues have apparently paid attention to our charges that audible
traffic signals pose a disturbance to the surrounding community and can interfere with a blind pedestrian's
ability to hear the flow of traffic.  A seven-second audible signal synchronized with a visual "WALK" sign
and which a blind pedestrian may choose not to activate is much more sensible than a continuously operating
one.  The central question remains:  Should blind pedestrians rely on audible traffic signals?  

Debbie Brown, Lloyd Rasmussen, and Tom Bickford, members of our Sligo Creek Chapter, traveled to
Massachusetts Avenue and Cromwell Street to test the audible signal.  They agreed that this is a difficult
crossing for blind pedestrians, since traffic on Massachusetts moves infrequently and at high speeds, and
Cromwell forms a T-intersection so that traffic on Cromwell must turn left or right.  While they sympathized
with the blind person who requested this signal, they remain resolute in their belief that a blind pedestrian
should not just rely on an audible signal to decide when it is safe to cross a street.  

The few blind persons in favor of audible traffic signals say that they are often unable to hear the traffic with
sufficient clarity to know when to cross.  They say that an intersection may be located at the bottom of a short
steep hill, making it difficult to hear the traffic coming up the backside of that hill.  They say that tall
buildings at the corners of an intersection may cause frequent noisy winds, again hampering one's ability to
hear traffic.  They say that traffic may be moving at such an excessive speed, preventing them from hearing
the movement of vehicles in sufficient time to attempt a safe crossing.

No one denies that these conditions pose serious hazards to the blind pedestrian.  The crucial fact remains
that  an audible signal can only provide information about the condition of the traffic light and not about the
condition of traffic.  Even with an audible signal, a blind pedestrian must listen to the flow of traffic to decide
when to cross.  If a blind pedestrian is unable to hear traffic without an audible signal, the audible signal will
not increase the acuity of his hearing.

The pretext of installing audible signals for the purpose of conducting a study is also questionable.  According
to traffic authorities, once a traffic signal is installed, it is never removed.  What kind of study can anyone
possibly conduct to test their effectiveness?  Do we install an audible signal and permit blind pedestrians to
use it until someone is injured or killed in an accident before we conclude that audible signals are unsafe? 
If blind pedestrians using the test audible signal are not involved in an accident during a specified period of
time, do  we falsely conclude that audible signals are effective?  It is not surprising that previous "studies"
of audible signals have proved inconclusive.

Some persons charge the National Federation of the Blind with hypocrisy, in view of our support of talking
elevators.  We contend that there is a difference.  The talking elevator, when properly designed and installed,
provides information that is genuinely useful to blind persons and does not invade the environment as the
continuously operating audible traffic signal does.  It has even been suggested that the talking elevator might
have commercial value if in addition to announcing the number of a floor, it would also announce the name
of the establishment located on that floor.

The best that can be said in defense of audible traffic signals is that if they do not create so much noise that
it is impossible to hear the flow of traffic, then they will tell us when a traffic light has changed.  While this
information is useful, it is not absolutely necessary for safe travel, as the experience of properly trained blind
persons has demonstrated for many years.

While the audible signal at Massachusetts and Cromwell might be justified, the process which led to its
installation is flawed.  Since traffic authorities should not be expected to have the understanding of blindness
that blind persons themselves have, a request for an audible signal should always be followed by a thorough
discussion between traffic authorities and a cross section of the blind public.  Alternative solutions should be
considered.  When it has been determined that an intersection is unsafe for all pedestrians, a solution
beneficial to all pedestrians should be adopted, and not an audible signal which might not be helpful at all.

We have not discussed the impact of the negative image of blindness which audible traffic signals can
reinforce in the mind of the public.  This is an issue which we will reserve for another article.



AN EYE FOR ART, WOMAN BRINGS UNIQUE VISION TO GALLERY

by David Halbrook

        From the editor:  In 1990 Tina Blatter left Maryland to take training at the Colorado Center for the Blind
        in Denver.  The following article, reprinted from the Times-Call, Longmont, CO, Sunday, January 26,
        1992, proves just how much blind people can achieve when they receive proper training.

Several years ago, Tina Blatter tumbled into an artistic crisis.

Fretful that her future hinged on duplicating the style of other painters, Blatter punished herself to render an
exact likeness of the world around her.

It wasn't a pleasant chore for someone legally blind since birth and able only to discern vague outlines of her
subjects.

Then a photographer gave her a revelation.

"This woman spent thousands of dollars on camera lenses to distort things," Blatter recalled.  "She said, 'You
can do it naturally, so why try to make everything perfect?'  It was one of those things that really influenced
me.  It gave me permission to be myself and not try to make everything real realistic."

To behold Blatter's workher exhibit is on display through February at the Lafayette Art Center, 101 S.
Public Roadis to experience life in the abstract.  It is to see and "feel" familiar objects and scenes jolted
from normal context.  It is art that commands full attention of the senses.

Employing all manner of mediasmooth stones, rhinestone stars and half-moons, stained glass paper-mache,
flower petals and pine needlesBlatter calls it two-dimensional, or tactile, art.
"I'm very aware of colors and things around me, and I try to be creative and imaginative as opposed to literal
in how I see things in my art," she said.  "I didn't come to the idea of tactile art until I was an adult because
we learn from an early age we're not supposed to touch things.

"I find children and blind people really enjoy it because most galleries and museums forbid us to feel things. 
A blind friend recently went to a museum and came back saying, 'Wow, I counted 18 glass cases.'"

Now uniquely her own, Blatter's style evolved, surprisingly, from a study of Henri Matisse.  "Matisse was
going blind in the late stages of his career," she said.  "He found it easier to cut pieces of paper to create his
art.  That gave me the idea of cutting petals out of foil and ribbon to help me see colors and shapes.  I later
learned that many of the early impressionists, like Monet, had sight impairments.  They just painted what they
saw."

A new resident of Colorado, Blatter divides her time between creating and marketing her art and teaching the
county's blind at Boulder's Center for People with Disabilities.  It is a good mix, she said, for supporting
oneself full-time as an artist in a new setting takes patienceand energy.  Often she must load herself and
her art onto a bus to market it at galleries across the Front Range.

"I spent a lot of time educating gallery owners about blindness.  Only later can we meet on the common
ground of art," she said.  "Certainly I'd like to someday be viewed as an artist first.  Then maybe the
headlines won't always say 'Blind Artist.'"

  

                                 1991-92 BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS CONTEST WINNERS

We salute the students from Maryland who entered the Braille Readers Are Leaders Contest for 1991-92. 
Your accomplishments are noteworthy.  You are engaged in an educational experience that will serve you well
throughout your lives.  Here are the contest participants and their accomplishments:

        Student                     Grade         Pages Read           National Recognition

        Jennifer Baker                 9              5416             3rd Place, Grades 9-12
        Gina Bunting                   5              1264             3rd place, Print to Braille
        Tiffany Green                  5              1321
        Annette Harvey                 6               175             Most Improved, Print to Braille
        Paul Jackson                   6                               Most Improved, Grades 5-8
        Jennifer Karns                 5               541 
        Frank Milner                  10               699
        Amjad Shaker                   7                28
        Christina Shorten              6               897
        Beth Smaligo             Kindergarten          145

See the next issue of Future Reflections for details about the 1992-93 Braille Readers Are Leaders Contest.



                                                       SPECKS

RETIRES:  Cherry King (Lanham), an active member of the Sligo Creek Chapter for the past 20 years,
retired from the Prince George's County School District on March 13.  She worked in that district for 31
years.  She was the librarian at the Andrew Jackson Middle School in Suitland for the past 20 years, since
the school first opened its doors.  This fall, the Andrew Jackson Middle School's library will be named in
her honor.  Congratulations, Cherry!

ALSO 90:  To the best of our knowledge, there are two nonagenarians among our members.  Kent Keene
(Baltimore), a lifetime member, celebrated his 90th birthday on March 21.  He continues to lead an active
life and communicates regularly with relatives in Virginia.  Congratulations, Kent!  You have our prayers
and our best wishes.

WEDDING BELLS:  In April, wedding bells rang in Baltimore for Miss Myrick and for Miss Finneyfrock. 
Susan Myrick, Dr. Jernigan's secretary for many years, was married to Rob Boeshore....Patricia Finneyfrock,
who also works at the National Center for the Blind, was married to Leonard Swigger.  Congratulations and
best wishes to the newlyweds.  

NEW BABIES:  Mark Eugene Plantz, Jr. was born to Mark and Inger Plantz (Silver Spring) on April 5 at
12:51 PM.  He weighed six pounds, eleven ounces, and measured 22 inches....Maria Rivera Forman was
born on January 1, 1992.  Since her parents, Eileen Rivera and Dr. Jeff Forman, are active federationists,
it is no surprise that Maria is a veteran, too.  Maria has already attended several chapter meetings, committee
meetings, was part of the organizing team that started our Puerto Rico affiliate and attended her first national
convention in Charlotte, North Carolina....Congratulations parents and babies.

KUDOS:  Kay Monville (Columbia) graduated from Howard County Community College with her Associates
Degree in General Studies....Dr. Betsy Zaborowski (Baltimore) was recently appointed to the Commission
on Women for Baltimore City....Loretta White (Pasadena) was recently appointed to the Anne Arundel
County Special Education Advisory Council....Mildred Rivera moved to Baltimore last December to accept
a position with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....Kathy Burnside moved to Minneapolis in
January to accept a position with BLIND, Inc....Tom Bickford (Kensington) recently completed 25 years of
federal service as an employee of the Library of Congress.

FATHER AND SON:  Ken Canterbury, treasurer of our Baltimore County Chapter, displayed a piece of
creative fundraising for the state affiliate by conducting a hot dog eating contest near the Dundalk Post Office
on Tuesday, June 16.  The winners were Darren Stewart and Brenda Fleishell of Dundalk.  Ken's son, Adam,
also displayed initiative by persuading his third-grade teacher to invite Sharon Maneki to appear as a guest
speaker before his class.  As it turned out, Sharon was invited to address all three of the third-grade classes
at Red House Run Elementary School on Tuesday, May 26.  Thank you Ken and Adam for jobs well done.



                                                      CALENDAR

July 25, 1992            NFB of Maryland Board of Directors meeting in Columbia, 10 AM, call (410)992-
                         9608 for details.
Sept. 18-20              26th annual state convention, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Thurs., October 15       National White Cane Safety Day.
October 1                Deadline for articles for next issue of the Braille Spectator.
Sat., November 7         NFB of Maryland Board of Directors meeting.  Time and place to be announced.CHAPTERS AND DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION

                                              OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND



Baltimore County Chapter
Donald Combs, president (410)323-8572
Monthly meetings second Thursday

Greater Baltimore Chapter
Eileen Rivera, president (410)433-5176
Monthly meetings third Saturday

Central Maryland Chapter
Brenda Mueller, president (301)551-7057
Monthly meetings third Tuesday

Greater Cumberland Chapter
Ron Burns, president (301)759-4673
Monthly meetings first Tuesday

Frederick County Chapter
Gerald Schultz, president (301)662-6803
Monthly meetings fourth Tuesday

Sligo Creek Chapter
Lloyd Rasmussen, president (301)946-8345
Monthly meetings second Saturday

Mountain City Chapter
Jean Faulkner, president (301)729-8942
Monthly meetings third Thursday

Southern Maryland Chapter
Ken Silberman, president (301)552-2839
Monthly meetings fourth Saturday

Parents of Blind Children Division
Loretta White, president (410)360-5108

Merchants' Division
Joe Byard, president (410)284-1768

Diabetics Support Network
Donna Goodman, chairman (410)730-9430
Monthly meetings fourth Tuesday
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND


TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL CONVENTION


GAITHERSBURG MARRIOTT

620 Lakeforest Boulevard
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Friday, September 18Sunday, September 20, 1992


LUXURIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS

Indoor/outdoor pool, whirlpool, saunas, exercise room.  Hazelton's family
restaurant, Tarragon's for gourmet cuisine, cozy retreat for cocktails,
snacks and quiet conversation at Hazelton's Tavern, high-energy
entertainment and dancing at Raffles II.

GREAT LOCATION

Next to Lakeforest Mall.

ATTRACTIVE ROOM RATES

$55.00-$66.00 per night per room, tax included.

RESERVE YOUR ROOM NOW

Send your completed reservation form and full payment for your room to Shirley
Morris by August 28, 1992.  Do not call the hotel for room reservations.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Call Sharon Maneki, President, NFB of Maryland, (410)992-9608.
                                                CONVENTION PREVIEW


                                               National Representative
                                                  To be announced.


Peer Support: The Critical Bridge in the Adjustment to Vision Loss and
Blindness
        Conducted by Dr. Betsy Zaborowski, Clinical Psychologist; President, Human
        Services Division, National Federation of the Blind.

        A seminar for the newly blind and their families, parents of blind children,
        diabetics, experienced blind persons who want to develop strategies to reach
        out to the newly blind, and interested professionals.
Discuss the issues!
Learn and practice the alternative techniques
Braille, mobility, and more!
                                               12:30 PM5:00 PM Friday


                                                Get Acquainted Party
                                          Hosted by the Sligo Creek Chapter
                                        Entertainment, cash bar, free snacks.


                                     NFB of Maryland Board of Directors Meeting
                                               5:00 PM6:00 PM Friday


                                    NFB of Maryland Resolutions Committee Meeting
                                                   8:00 PM Friday


                                              Saturday Evening Banquet
                                   Awards, scholarships, banquet address, auction.


                    General Sessions on Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning.



                         Door Prizes given throughout the General Sessions and the Banquet.

                           Special events for blind vendors and parents of blind children.
                                              Adjourn at noon, Sunday.