THE BRAILLE MONITOR PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS JANUARY, 1991 NAC, GRANT MACK, AND A CHICAGO PADDY WAGON by Kenneth Jernigan & Barbara Pierce GRANT MACK STATES HIS CASE NIB, NAC, AND TANSTAAFL by Peggy Pinder NAC: WHAT PRICE ACCREDITATION NAC AT 25: A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS by Peggy Pinder ROLL CALL OF SHAME: A LIST OF NAC-ACCREDITED ORGANIZATIONS HONOR ROLL OF PRIDE: A LIST OF AGENCIES WHICH HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM NAC ACCREDITATION IS THE BOARD'S BARK WORSE THAN ITS BITE? by Ed & Toni Eames NOT EVERYBODY'S STUPID: OR THE AIRLINES AND THE FAA ARE STILL IN COLLUSION AIRLINE SAFETY: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CAN SEE FIRE ON THE WING? by Kenneth Jernigan REFLECTIONS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE by Robert J. Leblond CALIFORNIA REHAB CUTS A DEAL WITH KRUM AND COMPANY FEDERATIONIST WANTS MINORITY BUSINESS EQUALITY WE CAN COUNT ON EACH OTHER by Marc Maurer SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1991 by James Gashel RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1991 [2 LEAD PHOTOS. PHOTO 1: Grant Mack at rear of police paddy wagon, with three police officers. CAPTION: December 8, 1990, at the NAC dinner in Chicago. Grant Mack, who is chairing the event, is taken to the police station in a paddy wagon. He is shown here accompanied by the police as he enters the paddy wagon (see accompanying article). PHOTO 2: Picketers carrying signs outside of the Bismark Hotel. CAPTION: Saturday, December 8, 1990, in front of the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago. Blind people from throughout the nation picket a NAC committee meeting (see accompanying article). NAC, GRANT MACK, AND A CHICAGO PADDY WAGON by Kenneth Jernigan and Barbara Pierce On the evening of December 8, 1990, thirty-four people were gathered in a third-floor meeting room at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago's famous Loop. The sounds of chanting and singing from more than a hundred cheerful but grimly determined picketers wafted up from the street below. The dinner meeting included a number of members of the Illinois affiliate of the American Council of the Blind (ACB), representatives from local member agencies of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC), and a handful of officials from two Illinois agencies that had not accepted NAC accreditation. Also present were Oral Miller (Washington representative of the ACB) and Grant Mack (chairman of the board of National Industries for the Blind, past president of the American Council of the Blind, and a long-time NAC proponent). Before the evening was over, Mack (who was chairing the event) would find himself taken to the police station in a paddy wagon. In a very real sense this Chicago dinner (along with its accompanying spectacle of violence, confrontation, and police) was a fitting climax for NAC's twenty-five-year history of failure and conflict, but even for NAC the proceedings were shabby. To understand the causes and implications of the fiasco, one needs to know something of NAC's genesis and background. In the 1950s the American Association of Workers for the Blind (now one of the components of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired) established what it called a Seal of Good Practices for agencies doing work with the blind. The AAWB hoped that its "Seal" would serve as a hallmark of excellence, conferring prestige upon agencies that received it and indicating quality performance--but it didn't work that way. Fewer than fifty agencies ever applied for the AAWB Seal of Good Practices, and many of those that did were among the worst in the field. By the mid-1960s the effort was abandoned. However, the dream lingered, and the American Foundation for the Blind stepped into the breach. The goal was worthy, to establish standards and improve the quality of services provided by agencies working with the blind--but the method was negative and almost certain to insure failure. In the early 1960s the American Foundation appointed what it called the Commission on Standards and Accreditation for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (COMSTAC). Funded by the Foundation and having a Foundation staff member as its executive, COMSTAC was seen by many not as a new and broadly based instrument of the blindness field but as a mere extension of the Foundation in new clothes. COMSTAC could boast of distinguished members-- professors, deans, lawyers, officials from labor unions, and community and business leaders; but the real control lay elsewhere, with a handful of the more regressive spokesmen for a few of the agencies in the blindness field. By and large, representatives of the blind were not consulted, and such consultation as there was tended to be of a token nature. Moreover, it was not just the blind who were dissatisfied. Many professionals in the field were also unhappy. When COMSTAC finished its work and prepared to go out of business, it appointed its successor agency (NAC) and gave NAC the staff member it had received from the American Foundation for the Blind. That staff member became NAC's executive director. (For a fuller account of NAC's beginnings see the article "NAC: What Price Accreditation" elsewhere in this issue.) In its early years (the late 1960s) NAC was fond of saying that it would soon have as accredited members a majority of the more than 500 eligible agencies in the field of work with the blind, but this was not to be. As the 1970s came and went, NAC was still struggling to get twenty percent of the eligible agencies to accept its accreditation. In the sixties NAC had stressed that its accreditation was to be voluntary. A decade later it was angrily talking of compulsion and the linking of the receipt of federal and state funds to accreditation. And through it all the confrontation, belligerence, and chaos continued to grow. In the decade of the eighties many of the larger and better known agencies that had originally accepted NAC accreditation dissociated themselves from the sinking ship and quietly withdrew. To keep up the appearance of numbers, NAC replaced these defectors with smaller and less well-known agencies so that by the end of the decade the NAC roster had a new and even less impressive look than in the beginning. And then total disaster threatened. In the late 1980s the American Foundation for the Blind, which had always provided some fifty percent of NAC's budget, told NAC that it must either improve its performance and streamline its procedures or lose Foundation funding. At long last the curtain was coming down. By 1990 the timetable had been set for a total phase-out of Foundation money. At this stage the leaders of National Industries for the Blind attempted to come to the rescue with a three-year program of cash bail-outs, but the trend was definitely downward. It seems clear that some time during early 1990 the shrinking band of NAC die-hards panicked and decided that desperation measures had to be taken. The federal Rehabilitation Act comes up for reauthorization in 1991, and NAC decided to ask Congress to amend the Act to require that only those agencies that are "accredited" may receive federal funds. To lobby for this measure, the law firm employing former Rehabilitation Commissioner Robert Humphreys was hired, presumably with money received from the National Industries for the Blind grant. If the NIB grant is, in fact, the source of Humphreys' fee, the payment would likely be illegal since it is (at least, indirectly) federal money. The desperation nature of this action is demonstrated by the almost certain opposition and hostility which it will receive from the Bush administration and the state directors of rehabilitation agencies for the blind. For that matter (see article elsewhere in this issue) even the sheltered shops, which constitute the underpinning and constituency of National Industries for the Blind, will oppose it. NAC has also caused a private charitable foundation to be created for the purpose of raising funds to replace its lost revenue. Corporate grants and individual contributions will be sought. In the past such efforts have been notably unsuccessful, but apparently NAC feels that a separate corporation with a different name might get the job done. But this is by no means all. Obviously the panic ran deep. NAC decided to commence an accelerated membership drive to try to bolster its sagging finances and prestige. For this purpose it established what it called the National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation, and it named Grant Mack as the committee's chairman. As will be seen, this was not to be simply an ordinary, garden variety membership drive but one with special features. The plan was to go to a different state almost every month, assemble officials from agencies that had not agreed to accept NAC accreditation, and lay it on the line with them. But how was this to be done? How was NAC to explain its failure to recruit (or, for that matter, even keep) agency members? The answer came at the first state meeting of the National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation--or, as Grant Mack and Oral Miller were to put it, the "truth squad." On September 20, 1990, a gathering was organized in St. Louis. Two agencies that had not accepted NAC accreditation attended--the state rehabilitation agency, which is on record as being opposed to NAC accreditation, and a small agency in Kansas City that is beginning to work with blind children. One Federationist attended that meeting as a member of the state agency's advisory committee, but he did not speak out or ask any of the tough and embarrassing questions that he might have raised. As he told the Braille Monitor, "Other people were asking them already." The program for that evening established the pattern that subsequent meetings would follow. NAC supporters took the floor and said how wonderful NAC accreditation is and how important the concept of accreditation will continue to be. They said that anyone who opposes NAC is obviously against high standards and quality services, which somehow doesn't seem to follow--and they laid great stress upon the fact that it is ridiculous to point to poor service provided by NAC-accredited agencies and then to say that NAC accreditation has caused those agencies to be substandard. This, of course, is putting the cart before the horse. No one has ever said that NAC accreditation makes an agency bad but that poor agencies tend to seek NAC accreditation as a shield and that NAC does harm by representing to the public that substandard is good. But how was NAC to explain the fact that after a quarter of a century fewer than twenty percent of the agencies in the field had accepted its accreditation, that only ninety-eight of the more than 500 are members, that it once had more than a hundred, and that it has had a net loss during the last year? The answer is as simple as it is old--find a scapegoat and divert attention. The principal event of the evening (mainly made by Mack and Miller) was an ill-tempered, bitter attack on the National Federation of the Blind--giving a distorted account of the history of the Federation's opposition to NAC and making numerous false statements. On November 15, 1990, what one agency official termed "Grant Mack's road show" went to Columbus, Ohio. This time five unaccredited agencies were represented though one of these had chosen to disaffiliate with NAC years ago and two others provide special services for which NAC has no standards. This time the NFB was invited. Four Federationists (including the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio) joined the group for dinner and listened with astonishment to the unprovoked and untruthful attack. When, at the end of the meeting, the NFB state president and the other Federationists attempted to comment on the most flagrant of the misstatements, Grant Mack repeatedly interrupted, stridently insisting that they limit themselves to questions or be silent. These Federationists were invited quests. They had remained silent during the entire attack, and had only spoken after being recognized to do so by Mack, who was chairing the meeting. Everyone present agreed that they were polite and restrained. This brings us back to the December 8 meeting in Chicago. Word had spread among the blind throughout the country of the treatment the Federation and Federationists had received in St. Louis and Columbus and of the bitter attacks being publicly made by Grant Mack, calling the Federation "mindless" and saying that its members were liars. Mack and Oral Miller had been saying that the failure of Federationists to picket recent NAC gatherings was a sign that the Federation had given up, that Federationists had recognized that NAC was winning. Statements that the picketing had been stopped to try to ease tension and in recognition of the positive steps made in recent years by the American Foundation for the Blind and of the growing threat to specialized services for the blind by the pan-disability movement were greeted with sneers and derision. As November drew to a close, the feeling began to be expressed across the country that the December NAC meeting in Chicago could not be allowed to take place without the NFB's views being registered. It took time to discover where and when the meeting was scheduled, but by early December the word was out--and the blind from across the nation began to rally as they had in the days before the announcement by the American Foundation for the Blind that it was phasing out its financial support of NAC. Saturday, December 8, came, and more than a hundred Federationists from Illinois and elsewhere in the nation were on the picket line at the Bismarck Hotel by 5:00 p.m. As usual in such situations, the police arrived to see what was happening-- and as usual, they commended the blind picketers for their courtesy and cooperation. The hotel entrance was not barred or blocked, but not everyone who walked through the picket line was courteous or even lacking in violence. One NAC supporter did something that no one has ever done before at a NAC demonstration. He came down to the picket line and began to move through it, angrily elbowing and shoving the peaceful picketers. He swore at the marchers and taunted them, trying to start a fight with his words and his elbows. He was heard to say, "Federationists! Dumb asses! Go home!" When he failed to incite anyone on the line to reciprocal violence or rudeness, he went up to the meeting in the hotel. Several hours later, as he was leaving, he again deliberately plowed into the picket line. Despite the fact that the path from the hotel door to the street was completely clear and that at least one sighted person with him urged him not to do so, he veered to the side and jostled the marchers, who were forced back against the people behind them. As he completed this maneuver, he angrily said, "Get the f--- out of my way." The man's name is Bob Jones, and he is a long-time member of the American Council of the Blind. The blind of the nation can be proud to report that not one person replied in kind. The picketers simply walked around him and ignored the disruption. On the third floor of the hotel the mood was definitely ugly. James Gashel, NFB Director of Governmental Affairs; Valerie Williams, his assistant; Steve Hastalis, a sound recording technician and member of the Chicago Chapter of the NFB; John Halverson, who was serving as a reporter for the Braille Monitor; and Marty Arellano, his assistant, had joined the group gathering for dinner. Federationists had been part of the Columbus, Ohio, meeting, and the word had been spread that Federationists were coming to Chicago--so a Federation contingent was on hand to record what happened on sound and video and to try to set the record straight during the after-dinner discussion. The Federationists appeared promptly at 5:30, the beginning of the pre-dinner reception. When Grant Mack arrived, Dennis Hartenstine (executive director of NAC) was overheard telling him that about fifteen Federationists had crashed the event. (As has been said, five were actually in the room.) At first Mack ruled that they could stay as long as they were courteous. This was an easy condition to meet since the group had come with the intention of remaining courteous whatever happened. However, Mack's participation in the discussion that followed could hardly be characterized by the word "courtesy." But in the end he agreed to allow the Federationists to stay. Here is the transcript of part of the conversation between Grant Mack and James Gashel: Mr. Mack: This was by invitation. You said somebody came with tickets. Mr. Gashel: Well, Grant, you know we all have tickets. Mr. Mack: Tickets for what? Mr. Gashel: I have a ticket right here in my pocket. Mr. Mack: To what? Mr. Gashel: This event. Mr. Mack (Becoming more agitated): We didn't sell tickets to this event.... Well, I don't know where you got your tickets or who paid for it, but it was not authorized, and you got a lot of damn balls to come in here and break in on it. Mr. Gashel: I don't think anybody... Mr. Mack: Now, we don't mind, but I want you to understand that you're not going to disrupt this meeting. Mr. Gashel: Oh, we don't plan to. Mr. Mack: All right. Mr. Gashel: We don't plan to. That's not the purpose for being here. Mr. Mack: Well, the hell it isn't. Mr. Gashel: No it isn't, but I don't think you should say the things you did in Columbus or in St. Louis. Mr. Mack: Well, we'll say the same things. Mr. Gashel: And you will not be allowed to do that. You don't have to behave that way. Mr. Mack: Well, we're going to say the truth. Mr. Gashel: The truth doesn't include the things you said. You certainly have a right to promote anything you want to, but you don't have a right to bash us. Mr. Mack: Nobody deserves it more, but this is like a private home, you see. Mr. Gashel: Well, that's fine; it looked like a public meeting to us. Mr. Mack: Well, it was not a public meeting; no one offered to sell you tickets. Mr. Gashel: No, they gave me a ticket. Mr. Mack: Who did? Mr. Gashel: I don't know who gave it to me, to tell you the truth, but it was given to me. I assumed it came from the Illinois people. Mr. Mack: Well, that is not right; we did not issue any tickets. Mr. Gashel: Well, it looks to me like the Illinois people are a lot more cooperative than you are. Mr. Mack: I'm plenty cooperative; I just think that the brashness of you... Mr. Gashel: Nobody's going to disrupt your meeting. Mr. Mack: Well, you're right about that. I just want you to understand that. I got no problem with you being here, not at all. Mr. Gashel: I'd just like to have dinner with you. Mr. Mack: Yes, I understand; you've come all the way from Baltimore just to have dinner. Mr. Gashel: Absolutely.... Mr. Mack: You play it cool, baby. Mr. Gashel: You too. There you have the exchange between Grant Mack and James Gashel; and, if it cannot be characterized as cordial, it certainly leaves the reader (and, in fact, left Mr. Gashel) with the impression that the evening's host was resigned, at least, to having NFB observers in the meeting. Before dinner was served, however, Grant Mack seems to have lost his cool. John Halverson, one of the leaders of the Missouri affiliate, was serving as a reporter for the Braille Monitor. In addition to observing the discussion, he was directing the work of a video cameraman, who was setting up his equipment during the reception. Dennis Hartenstine talked with Mack, and Mack hurried over to Halverson. This is what happened next, as John Halverson recalled it later for the Braille Monitor: I said that I was a reporter for the Braille Monitor and planned to video the speeches. Both Mack and Hartenstine said there would be no taping in this meeting. Mack asked who had invited me to the meeting. I replied, "I am a member of the press and want to report on the NAC meeting. I also have a ticket for the dinner." Mack said that this was a private meeting and there would be no taping. At that point someone called for hotel security. Mack continued speaking and getting more angry. He repeated that it was a private meeting and that I was not invited. He said there were several uninvited guests in the room and they would have to leave. I told Mack that I was a member of the press in a public hotel covering a meeting which would be discussing federal funds for agencies serving the blind. I continued, "You are talking about the lives of blind persons; and I, as a reporter, have a right to be present." At about this time a member of hotel security arrived. Mack said that, if I was not out of the room in five minutes, he would have the hotel call the police and they would bring the wagon and take me away. The hotel security guard agreed. Again, I stated that I was a member of the press and wanted to cover the meeting because it would deal with the lives of blind persons.... At about this time Mack became more belligerent. While speaking with me, he kept moving in closer, causing his dog guide to brush against my leg. At one time he said, "The Braille Monitor is a yellow journal." He said, "You are all liars," and he added that I was a liar. I asked, "How do you know that I am a liar? You don't know me." Mack repeated, "You are all liars. I know about you; I know you have a reputation for being a liar." There you have the exchange between Grant Mack and John Halverson as Dr. Halverson reported it, and even though Mack got his way and the Monitor reporter was nonconfrontive (or maybe because of these facts), something in Grant Mack seemed to snap at this point. The next thing people noticed was that Mack was announcing in a loud and angry voice that all Federationists would have to leave the room or be arrested. Then he supervised as hotel security escorted the Federationists from the room, one by one. However, they were not leaving quickly enough for Grant Mack. According to witnesses, he sought them out individually, shouting and swearing at them to leave. When he reached Steve Hastalis, he found him talking in a group composed of the superintendent of the Illinois school for the blind; the director of the state vocational rehabilitation agency; and Catherine Randall, first vice president of the NFB of Illinois, who was present as an advisory board member from the agency. Mack grabbed Hastalis's arm and, twisting it, spun Hastalis around to face him. According to several witnesses, Mack then shouted at him to "Get the hell out of here with that thing." According to Hastalis, this was the first he had heard of any instruction to leave. He had been talking peacefully with friends and acquaintances, and he was suddenly spun around and shouted at. All he could think of was the need to stay on his feet. As a big city resident, he has been the object of several street muggings, and he knew that the violence directed at him by word and action could be dangerous if he were to be thrown to the ground in a vulnerable position. He says that he also knew that it was important for him to suppress his natural impulse to protect himself by fighting back as he has successfully done against muggers. He says that he was determined to be courteous and peaceful, so he concentrated his energy on keeping his temper and staying on his feet--an effort which, along with the force and torque of Mack's grasp on his arm, caused him to drop several pieces of the valuable equipment he was carrying. His microphone stand was broken and the microphone was damaged when Mack grabbed it and ripped it away from the battery pack. Hastalis says that the school superintendent, Richard Umsted, later sought him out and apologized to him for what had happened. One of the members of the board of an agency that has not agreed to accept NAC-accreditation agency later commented to Catherine Randall that he had seen the whole thing and that it looked pretty violent to him. According to Randall the director of the vocational rehabilitation agency later told his table mates that the Federationists should not have been thrown out. [PHOTO: NFB members gathered in meeting room at Bismarck hotel. CAPTION: Blind picketers have left the line in front of the hotel to hear a report from Marc Maurer concerning the physical attack made on Steve Hastalis by Grant Mack.] Those who had been ejected from the NAC meeting then made a report to the full group of blind people, who came in from the picket line to hear what had happened. Everyone then took a break, returning to the picket line at about 8:15. In the meantime, Steve Hastalis had obviously been searching his soul. He was deeply shaken by the violence of Mack's rage. Hastalis is a quiet, gentle man. He goes about his business, earns his living, and believes in blind people. He came to the conclusion that the violence he had experienced at the hands of Grant Mack was wrong, so he called the police. When they arrived, Grant Mack was chairing the meeting. He was summoned from the room and escorted by five of Chicago's police from the hotel. He was put into a paddy wagon and taken to the police station. Steve Hastalis and Peggy Pinder, who is an attorney in private practice, followed him in a squad car. They found that Oral Miller had already arrived, and the conclusion of the discussions that followed was that the police, unsure of their ground, decided not to act that evening. The whole matter was referred for further investigation. Mack and Miller returned to the third-floor meeting at the Bismarck, and at the close of it Mack had one more distasteful encounter with a member of the Federation. Francesca Bacon, a member of the NFB staff and an active member of the Baltimore chapter, had spent the evening taking pictures of the picket line and the activities on the third floor. Here is an excerpt from her written account: At 10:30 p.m. Mr. Mack and Mr. Hartenstine were leaving the meeting together, along with Matthew (Mack's dog guide), and I was taking the opportunity to get some pictures. Mr. Mack said, "Do you want me to autograph those pictures for you, Honey?" His tone was sarcastic. I said, "Well, I suppose we could arrange to send you a copy or two of these pictures for you to autograph if that's what you want. And, by the way, my name is Miss Bacon, not Honey." Mr. Mack's response was, "Well, Honey, you sound really hard up." I said, "I am not your honey, and I am not hard up." On Monday morning, December 10, 1990, a complaint was filed against Mack, and a hearing was set for early January. A summons was delivered to Grant Mack at his home in Salt Lake City, Utah, and there the matter stands at the time of this writing, (late December). It is not certain at this time whether a peaceful resolution to this matter can be found. This is not the time when elements in the blindness field should be locked in an internal struggle. We are facing perhaps the most dangerous threat that has ever beset us--the juggernaut of the generic disability programs that would engulf us and submerge the needs of the blind in the larger (and, for the most part, very different) needs of the pan- disability movement. In recent years the major organizations in the blindness field have made very real strides in building new understandings and agreeing upon joint action. At this moment of genuine internal promise and profound external danger, NAC and its supporters have gathered themselves for one last effort to shatter the progress that has been made. There are a growing number of professionals in the blindness field who have taken part in NAC's agency self-studies or on-site reviews who will say in private that both these exercises are frequently a bad joke played on staff and clients alike. When the blind protest that the accrediting body must bear some responsibility for poor agency service among its members, NAC replies that it is innocent. Surely there would be a public outcry against a city health department that licensed a restaurant that had repeated outbreaks of food poisoning. The city could argue that it had not given anyone food poisoning, that clean restaurants were also licensed, and that poor management might benefit from having health officials come from time to time to discuss the health code with them. But the victims of the food poisoning, their families and friends, and even those healthy people who might wander in to the restaurant occasionally would all resent the city's attitude and demand accountability. That is what the blind demand of NAC today-- accountability. Be all of that as it may, the greatest enemy of NAC is NAC itself. On December 8, 1990, at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago NAC probably provoked the trigger event which will finally cause its long overdue demise--and the blind of the nation, as well as most of the professionals in the field, will rejoice. The rejoicing will occur not because of NAC's failure but because of the harm which it has done to the blind and the agencies in the field. Surely it is time to put this unfortunate and unsuccessful episode behind us and to move on to a better day of harmony and cooperation. Let the dead be dead. [PHOTO: Dennis Hartenstine and Grant Mack standing in Bismarck Hotel hallway. Grant Mack's dog guide, Matthew, is also shown. CAPTION: Grant Mack (right), chairman of NAC's Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation, and Dennis Hartenstine, NAC's Executive Director.] GRANT MACK STATES HIS CASE From the Editor: As has been reported elsewhere in this issue of the Monitor, Grant Mack was taken to the Chicago police station in a paddy wagon on December 8, 1990. A few days after this incident, Mack circulated a document purporting to give the facts. We think it may be instructive to Monitor readers to know what he said, so we are printing the entire text of his paper. When conflicting claims are made, it is sometimes difficult to judge their accuracy. However, in the Grant Mack document we have a rare opportunity. It contains statements which are provably not true and which are refuted by the internal evidence of the document itself. This permits us to judge other statements by Mr. Mack when proof is not available one way or another. All who were present at the Bismarck Hotel on December 8 agree that not more than thirty-five people were present at the dinner. All agree that Catherine Randall, First Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois, was one of those present by invitation. In his paper Mack says: "All thirty- five people present offered to be a witness to the situation." We have talked with Catherine Randall, and she says that she made no such offer. If one argues that Mr. Mack was simply careless with his facts, it makes the point. Moreover, Steve Hastalis, who was the victim of Mack's attack, says that Richard Umsted (superintendent of the state school for the blind in Illinois) apologized to him for Mack's behavior. Others who were in the room expressed shock and surprise. Based on the evidence presented in the Mack paper and elsewhere in this issue of the Monitor, where does it seem that the truth lies? There is more. In his paper Mack says "I discovered the room had at least 10 NFB people equipped with video cameras and microphones." There were only five NFB representatives in the room, and we have named them elsewhere in this issue of the Monitor. Perhaps Mr. Mack could tell us who the other five were. Moreover, there was one video camera and one tape recorder. Certainly all of these ten Federationists in the room were not equipped with video cameras and tape recorders. Again, would Mr. Mack like to prove to the contrary? By Mr. Mack's own statement he committed a battery, which is a criminal act. His own words are: "I reached out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up, and threw it down." Of course, one could draw the clever distinction that Mr. Mack did not physically attack Steve Hastalis but only Hastalis's microphone, carefully avoiding any contact with Hastalis himself--but naivetŠ ends somewhere. Mack tries to explain his rowdyism by saying that when he arrived at the dinner he and others who were blind did not know of the multitude of video cameras and microphones that were present. Is this believable? Members of the National Federation of the Blind have been attending NAC meetings for almost twenty years, and in each and every instance tape recorders have been brought. Mr. Mack has attended these meetings. Therefore, he knew (or had every reason to know) that recorders would be present. Additionally, he had already ejected John Halverson from the room and had discussed with Halverson the fact that Halverson had a video camera and that recording was being done. No, it won't wash, and Mr. Mack's contrived explanation does not alter the fact that a battery was committed. The explanation which Mr. Mack gives as to why he was taken to the police station is laughable and transparently at variance with reality. "We were escorted to the elevator," he says, "down to the ground floor, and into a paddy wagon. Strangely, the entire distance from the meeting room to the paddy wagon was lined with `blind' NFBers with cameras, an obvious set-up." Is it really "strange" that the hall was lined with people and cameras? After all, the Federation representatives were there to demonstrate, and they knew that charges had been filed. It would have been "strange" if there had not been a large crowd on hand to witness the spectacle. And what about the charge that the trip to the police station was "an obvious set-up?" How could it have been a set-up since no one knew in advance that Mr. Mack would lose his cool and physically attack Steve Hastalis, breaking a microphone and throwing it to the floor? No, again it won't do. The microphone worked long enough to record Mr. Mack's foul language and swearing, his belligerence and real behavior. He lost his cool and probably gave the final death blow to NAC in the process. But let Mr. Mack's own words (words which he cannot now take back or deny) convict him. Here is the paper he circulated: On Saturday, December 8, 1990, an NCAA (National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation) committee-sponsored dinner was scheduled for the Bismarck Hotel in downtown Chicago. Preparations for the meeting had begun some three to four weeks prior to December 8. With the help of Joyce Russell, President, Illinois Council of the Blind, several responsible consumers as well as a number of agency directors (of both accredited and non- accredited agencies) had been issued invitations to attend this dinner meeting. Thirty-five people confirmed their intention to attend. Those who were asked to make presentations at the meeting were: Dr. Toni Heinze, Immediate Past President of AER and professor at Northern Illinois University; Dennis Hartenstine, Executive Director, National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped; Oral Miller, National Representative of the American Council of the Blind; Bob Esposito, American Foundation for the Blind representative in Washington, D.C.; Milton Samuelson, Executive Director of the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind; and Dr. Richard Umsted, Superintendent of the School for the Blind in Jacksonville, Illinois. A week or so before the actual meeting, rumors started to surface to the effect that the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) was going to picket the meeting in full force. What triggered this reaction on the part of NFB? Two similar meetings had been held in Missouri and Ohio respectively in October and November. NFB people were present at both meetings by invitation. Did the word reach NFB headquarters to the effect that these meetings had been successful in generating interest in accreditation; that the myths being promulgated about accreditation, what it is and isn't, was finally reaching responsible people; or was it a speech I made at the NAC Biennial meeting in Washington on November 18, in which I reported the success of these meetings and our intention to continue them? At any rate, upon arrival in Chicago early on Saturday morning, it became very evident that NFB was in fact planning a major demonstration. On checking with hotel staff, I learned that the NFB people had come in the day before, found out where our dinner meeting was being held, and then immediately reserved rooms next to ours, obviously with the intention of disrupting our meeting. When informed about the potential problem, the hotel people were very cooperative in moving our meeting room to the opposite end of the third floor which would assure privacy. We also alerted the hotel to the fact that it was very possible that some trouble could develop and we insisted that they have plenty of security people on hand to handle any incidents. The dinner was to be served promptly at 6:30 p.m. preceded by a hospitality gathering of thirty to forty minutes prior to that time. Upon reaching the room at approximately 5:45 p.m., I discovered the room had at least 10 NFB people equipped with video cameras and microphones. Those of us who are totally blind were, of course, not aware that the cameras and recorders were in place for some minutes after our arrival. James Gashel appeared to be their leader. He was told that they were not invited and were asked to leave. Their pretended innocence at being excluded from a meeting involving blind people should have tipped us off that it was a staged provocation. It was about at that point I learned the cameras and recorders were in place. After much jostling and patient cajoling, the hotel security people finally were able to remove most of them, but only after threatening to call the police. Mr. Milt Samuelson, Executive Director of the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind, told me that one person was left with a microphone, and that he was holding the mike right in front of me. I reached out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up, and threw it down. Security then cleared the room and we proceeded with our meeting. At around 8:15 - 8:30 p.m., when the meeting was reaching the point where all the presentations had been made and we were getting to the "question and answer" period, I was informed by a person near the door that a Chicago policeman wanted to talk with me outside. I left my guide dog under the table and accompanied the lady to the door where I was informed by a sergeant from the Chicago Police Department that a complaint had been filed against me for battery, and he requested that I come with him for questioning. I suggested the meeting was nearly over and if he would wait, I would accompany him. He said he was sorry but I must come now. Someone retrieved my dog for me and informed Oral Miller of what was happening, so, when Matthew and Oral Miller appeared in the entrance, we all left. We were escorted to the elevator, down to the ground floor, and into a paddy wagon. Strangely, the entire distance from the meeting room to the paddy wagon was lined with "blind" NFBers with cameras, an obvious set-up. Oral Miller was put in a police car and we were taken to the Downtown Loop police station. After being ushered to an inner room, the sergeant left and returned with the captain. Responding to the captain's query on exactly what happened, I repeated the story as outlined above. He disappeared, returned shortly, and then apologized for the inconvenience. He said he had lectured Steven Hastalis, the complainant, on the right to privacy and the laws of eavesdropping with electronic devices, and he suggested that there should be no more trouble from him. As the sergeant escorted Oral Miller and me back to the paddy wagon for the return trip to the hotel, he said, "Had I been in the same situation, I would have found it difficult to keep from hitting the guy." Oral Miller and I returned to the hotel and were surprised to find the meeting still in session. The meeting concluded and many people apologized for the inconvenience experienced in Chicago. I told them it was not their fault. It was not Chicago people or Illinois people who caused it, but outsiders. All thirty-five people present offered to be a witness to the situation. This unbelievable incident has been reported as correctly as I can remember it. It is incredible to me that someone who proports (sic) to be interested in the welfare of blind people can continue to waste time, means, and effort in a mindless vendetta against an organization which many years ago he found that he could not control. NIB, NAC, AND TANSTAAFL by Peggy Pinder Robert Heinlein, the science fiction writer, is remembered and read fondly by millions all over the world. To my mind, he has four outstanding strengths: First, he locates crucial action in two of his books in Grinnell, Iowa. Second, all but one of his books include cats as characters, the exception being one in which the principal action takes place on the moon. Third, he wrote The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, an achievement which, by itself, would crown any life's accomplishments. And, fourth, he formulated and disseminated the important concept of Tanstaafl--"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) has thought for a long time that it is above the rules of the game, including the one about free lunches. Its very existence has been a free lunch. NAC has never been a going concern. It has never made enough money through fees to cover its expenses for the service it offers. Every year it has made the rounds of various benefactors, such as the American Foundation for the Blind, trumpeting the value of its services and asking for money to make budgetary ends meet. And every year, someone has come up with the cash. For each of its twenty-four years, NAC has run a deficit and has been saved by others from the usual consequences of such behavior. No wonder NAC believes there is a free lunch; it has been on a twenty-four-year binge, eating on somebody else's tab. The American Council of the Blind, an organization with a well-deserved reputation of its own for sitting down at other people's tables whenever and wherever the board has been spread, has steadily (if ineffectually) raised its voice in support of NAC. In the November, 1982, Braille Forum (the ACB's publication) Grant Mack, the then president of the ACB, wrote, "Let it be noted from now on the ACB will use all its power to encourage every agency to seek accreditation. Those agencies that have turned their backs on accreditation in the past will no longer do so with impunity. This is not a threat, but merely a statement of fact, because the American Council of the Blind plans to use every method at its disposal to make certain that every agency serving the blind is accredited." So said the ACB's president in 1982, and through the years the ACB members of the NAC cheering section have remained faithful and vociferous despite the continuing refusal of the vast majority of agencies in the field to ally themselves with NAC and despite the increasing tide of accredited agencies divesting themselves of their NAC seals. In 1986, when some of its traditional benefactors began to show weariness at NAC's yearly raid on their balance sheets, NAC started down a new avenue for meeting its expenses. National Industries for the Blind (NIB), the agency that actually hands out federal contracts to sheltered workshops under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program, announced to all workshops that they could be accredited by NAC at no cost to themselves. NIB would pay the tab. This new effort to cover NAC's annual deficits would result in two free lunches: NAC would get fees from more accredited agencies, and workshops would get accreditation without having to pay for it. That is the attractive offer that NIB made to NAC and the workshops. Those involved in the planning undoubtedly expected this to create a situation in which everyone would be happy, and the Heinlein principle of tanstaafl ("There ain't no such thing as a free lunch") would be proved wrong forever. There was only one fly in this ointment. The workshops didn't care for the offer. Apparently they had read Heinlein, and they knew all about the real cost of a free lunch. They stayed away in droves from the offer of free NAC accreditation. Late in 1989 NIB added dessert to the free lunch it proposed to serve to NAC. Not only would NIB pay for any workshop that wanted accreditation, but NIB itself would also give NAC $300,000 over the next three years, $125,000 the first year. Shortly before this generous offer was made, NIB announced that it was increasing the commission that workshops must pay to it. Though the law gives workshops for the blind a priority in the letting of federal contracts, NIB got in the way years ago and convinced everybody that it should be the middle man between government and workshop, taking a cut of every contract as the money passed by. NIB announced a hike in this commission rate; and, although it stoutly maintained that other expenses had driven up the commission rate, everyone understood that the real explanation was the need to pay for its generous gift to NAC. (Well, of course, as you can see, NIB wasn't exactly doing the giving. It was to come from the workshops--but the workshops don't count. So NIB was doing the giving.) The cost of the free lunch began to be revealed. This hike in the commission rate brought forth a storm of protest. Workshops use the proceeds from contracts to pay the salaries of managers and the wages of workers and to buy raw materials for the next contract. NIB's extra bite out of the contract proceeds meant less for everybody in the workshops. So feeling the pinch, the managers and workers found themselves for once in the same camp, resisting NAC. NIB has heard a proverb or two in its time, so it tried to lure the fly out of the ointment by using a little honey. But the only honey it could come up with turned out to be the renewal of its old promise to pay every cent of accreditation costs for each sheltered workshop in the country. But the workshops were still not biting. They knew about two chickens in every pot, pie in the sky, and free lunches--and they had also had a look at the check. The cost was coming out of commissions (the commissions paid by the workshops to NIB), and it was too high. All of this serves as prelude to the banquet served up at the fall meeting of the General Council of Workshops for the Blind, held from October 21 to 24, 1990, in New Orleans. At these gatherings workshop managers congregate; NIB comes; and meetings of all sorts occur. These include regional gatherings of the General Council, as well as full meetings of all workshop representatives and a meeting of the NIB board of directors. On Sunday, October 21, 1990, the workshop representatives met by region over breakfast. Each region considered topics of interest to its members, including any issues of national scope that regional members chose to bring up. Knowing the process and having plans of their own, the friendly folks at NIB and NAC had decided to seek workshop and NIB board approval of a resolution which would recommend that the federal Rehabilitation Act be amended to require accreditation before any federal rehabilitation money could be received. Many workshops, of course, receive federal rehabilitation money in addition to their federal contract priority sales. Here is the text of the resolution as it was circulated: WHEREAS, accreditation of education, human, and social service programs for people with disabilities is essential to ensure quality services and program accountability; and WHEREAS, both taxpayers and beneficiaries of services increasingly are demanding assurance of quality of programs funded by federal tax dollars; and WHEREAS, authorities under the Rehabilitation Act expire September 30, 1991 and the Act will be amended and extended by Congress next year; and WHEREAS, programs under the Rehabilitation Act would benefit by linking federal funding to accreditation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Industries for the Blind supports and endorses amendments to the Rehabilitation Act to require accreditation as a condition for federal funding for programs authorized under such legislation; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be provided to the Secretary of Education and appropriate subsidiary officials of the Department of Education, and to the Congress. -------------------- There it is, and one can see why a number of workshop managers were less than enthusiastic when they read it and thought about the implications. Richard Brueckner, President of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, was one who put his thoughts on paper in a letter to a member of Region I of the General Council. Although he was not planning to attend the fall meeting, he wanted to be certain that his views were heard and understood. Here is what he had to say: Baltimore, Maryland October 18, 1990 Mr. Alan Wingrove Delaware Industries for the Blind New Castle, Delaware Dear Sir: Please be advised that Blind Industries and Services of Maryland is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the proposed resolution in support of accreditation to be presented to the NIB Board of Directors on Sunday, October 21, 1990. This organization cannot support the idea of accreditation without an impartial consideration of the accrediting authority which confirms its legitimacy, its ability to make sound decisions, and its ability to apply fair standards. This organization can in no way support the activities of NAC, which currently pretends to provide accreditation to organizations such as ours. We strongly urge the NIB Board of Directors not to adopt this resolution. Richard J. Brueckner, President Blind Industries and Services of Maryland ------------------- The topic of the resolution was raised at all four regional meetings over breakfast. The results were like this: Region IV, basically the Far West and Southwest, discussed the resolution and then tabled any further action on it. Regions II and III, the country's midsection, heard mention of the resolution from the podium and didn't even bother to discuss it. Region I, the Eastern Seaboard, discussed the proposed resolution with vigor. After vehement expressions of opinion from many, the Eastern Seaboard region voted unanimously and resoundingly to reject the resolution. Not a single region supported it, and attitudes ranged from unwillingness to discuss the issue to strenuous opposition. NIB's board met later that day. In the chair was Grant Mack, bringing to NIB all of the skill he showed in shepherding the American Council of the Blind to virtual financial and other ruin when he was president of that organization. Mack had the constant, personal support and assistance of Dennis Hartenstine, executive director of NAC, who was much in evidence this day, offering to talk to anyone who would listen. The discussion at the NIB board meeting began with Mack's opening the subject in a tone of sweet reason, as if the topic were one on which all people of good will would agree. But the proceeding quickly progressed to stormy debate and ended with the NIB board tabling the resolution. One observer stated that the NAC opponents began as a minority; but as the depth and strength of the opposition to NAC became evident, they gained a majority of the votes and tabled the matter. Another observer (a strong supporter of NAC) was heard to comment that the tabling of the motion was the only way out of a bad situation for Mack and NAC. The pro-NAC forces did not realize the strength and depth of opposition to NAC and fought a rearguard action to avoid having the resolution actually defeated by pleading that it be tabled while the re-authorization of the Rehabilitation Act was under discussion. Then, says our NAC supporter, after NAC accreditation is completely ignored in the 1991 Rehabilitation Act re-authorization, the issue will be allowed to pass away quietly into the night. According to several reports, Grant Mack was beside himself over his failure to contrive board passage of the pro-NAC resolution. Mack, of course, would not have characterized his defeat in such terms, maintaining fiercely that the resolution was written to support the concepts of accreditation and quality standards in general and that NAC--the only major accrediting body in the blindness field as Mack would put it--was just an incidental beneficiary. But whichever way one describes the resolution, the obvious fact remains that NIB's attempt to go on record as supporting incorporation of an accreditation prerequisite in the Rehabilitation Act amendments has failed. By the time the matter can be raised again at an NIB Board meeting in the spring, the amendment recommendations will pretty much have been agreed upon. Everyone in the NIB Board meeting with any political sense understood this timetable and took part in the discussion in full recognition of it. With this fact in mind, it is interesting to note the way in which Grant Mack described the NIB Board's action (or lack of action) when he was asked directly about it in a public meeting on November 15, 1990, in Columbus, Ohio. He told Barbara Pierce, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio, that several members of the NIB board seemed, as he put it, unable to understand the true intent of the resolution. They apparently thought, he said, that federal contracts with the workshops might soon be predicated on NAC accreditation. According to Mack, it was clear to proponents of the resolution that no matter how simply and clearly (in fact, no matter how earnestly) they stated the purity and innocence of their intentions, there were going to be a couple of votes against the resolution. Mack said with a perfectly straight face that the proponents felt that it was important to have a unanimous vote in support of the resolution, so the decision was made to table it until it could be explained to those who couldn't understand. In that way a unanimous vote could be secured the next time around. It will be remembered that Grant Mack said in 1982 that the ACB would "use all its power to encourage every agency to seek accreditation" and that "those agencies which have turned their back on accreditation will no longer do so with impunity." It would seem that the ACB's power now extends to the rewriting of history (at least, when in Columbus, Ohio) and to ignoring obvious facts about the financial stability of NAC. Surely everyone would have to agree that NAC's survival is currently dependent on NIB's financial support and further that NIB's continued financial support depends, in turn, on widespread acceptance of NAC by the workshop managers. That acceptance is now at an all-time low and likely to sink still lower. NAC has now become hooked on the free lunch. It seems to have concluded that, for it to exist, agencies throughout the country will have to be compelled to accredit. Voluntary association is not enough. With this part of NAC's analysis we heartily agree. Almost nobody outside the original network of NAC creators supports NAC these days. Agencies have to watch their pennies, explain their expenditures, and justify sending tens of thousands of dollars out of state to a New York entity from which they can demonstrate no corresponding benefit. Agencies must also deal with the reality that blind consumers are offended and insulted by NAC and that NAC accreditation poisons efforts to develop strong partnerships with local members of the blind community. We, the blind, have seen too much poor service and life-endangering action by agencies accredited by NAC to permit the farce to continue. We decided long ago that we, the blind, would speak for ourselves. More and more agencies are listening. A final interesting note to this most recent effort by NAC to cadge another free lunch. One of NAC's earliest and strongest supporters is Carl Augusto, now head of the Cincinnati Association for the Blind, including its famous (or perhaps infamous) workshop. Augusto hopes that his decades of agreeing with NAC and its old boy network will land him some day at the head table. It is common knowledge that he is aiming at the executive directorship of the American Foundation for the Blind. He is also aiming for a very special place by a set of wily tactics he hopes will gain him applause from the NAC crowd. The Cincinnati Association is now a union shop, which gets work from NIB. Augusto is reportedly toying with the idea of transforming his workshop from one employing only the blind to one employing a broader group of the severely handicapped. The blind have collective bargaining; the severely handicapped do not. Augusto, like Frank Lorenzo before him, hopes to step to greatness over a broken union. We would merely note that it didn't work for Lorenzo, and there is no reason to expect that Augusto will fare any better. As for NAC, it is clear that its time is running out. After alternately bullying and flattering the workshops with threats and promises of accreditation, it has apparently worn out its welcome. In place of the elusive free lunch, we commend to NAC that other pastime conducted at tables, the poker game--and particularly the song about it made famous by Kenny Rogers: You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. The time has come for NAC to run. Tanstaafl. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Sooner or later, one pays--and NAC's bill has come due. NAC: WHAT PRICE ACCREDITATION A Report to National Federation of the Blind Members on COMSTAC and NAC by Kenneth Jernigan, President National Federation of the Blind From the Editor: I delivered this address at the 1971 convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Houston. NAC's president and executive director had come to discuss what NAC was doing and why. My remarks were meant to set the tone for the debate. In the context of NAC's current maneuvering I think this 1971 analysis is still pertinent. Here it is: When the Commission on Standards and Accreditation on Services for the Blind (COMSTAC) and its successor organization, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired (NAC), came into being during the 1960s, the leaders of the organized blind movement sounded the alarm. It was pointed out that the American Association of Workers for the Blind had unsuccessfully tried, during the 1950s, to gain control of the field of work for the blind by instituting what it called a "seal of good practices." Of the several hundred agencies and organizations in this country doing work with the blind only twenty or thirty ever applied for and received this "seal." Several of those which did were not regarded by the blind as either very effective or very progressive. As the decade of the '60s approached, the proponents of rigid agency control apparently decided to change tactics. The American Foundation for the Blind and certain other leading agency officials adopted the idea of establishing a so-called "independent" accrediting system for all groups doing work with the blind. Although individual blind persons who were agency officials were involved in the establishment and development of COMSTAC, the blind as a group were not consulted--that is, the representative organizations of the blind were not given a voice, except occasionally as a matter of tokenism. Thus, the consumers of the services were not heard in any meaningful way, and they had no part in developing or promulgating the standards to govern the agencies established to give them assistance. Profiting by the earlier failure of the AAWB "seal of good practices" experiment, the authors of COMSTAC built more carefully. The American Foundation for the Blind appointed an "independent" commission--the Commission on Standards and Accreditation for Services for the Blind (COMSTAC). The full-time staff consultant for COMSTAC was a staff member of the AFB, on loan to the group, purely as a means of demonstrating the Foundation's concern with the improvement of services for the blind. To add respectability, people of prestige outside of the field of work with the blind were placed on the commission-- public officials, business executives, the dean of the Temple Law School, etc. These were people of good will and integrity, but they were not knowledgeable concerning the problems of blindness. Obviously they took their tone and orientation from the Foundation appointees on COMSTAC. All of these appointees, it must be borne in mind, were high-ranking officials doing work with the blind. Not one of them represented the blind themselves. Not one of them came from a membership organization of blind persons. As its work developed, COMSTAC divided into subcommittees, involving hundreds of people throughout the country, since the subcommittees further subdivided into smaller groups. Again, the pattern was followed. The subcommittees, or the subcommittees of the subcommittees, had, in every instance, at least one of the COMSTAC agency officials as a member, plus people of prestige and ordinary rank and file agency workers or board members. In fact, at the sub-subcommittee level a few members of the organized blind movement were even added. The American Foundation for the Blind and COMSTAC were later to proclaim with pride that they had sought and achieved a broad consensus throughout the field of work with the blind. However, the method of arriving at that consensus was, to say the least, novel. At Denver in the summer of 1965, for instance, the AAWB convention was largely taken up with a discussion of the COMSTAC standards--to gather opinions and achieve consensus, it was said. Only the discussion leaders had copies of the standards (there had been a delay in mimeographing), and any touchy point which was raised was answered either by the statement that it was covered somewhere else in the COMSTAC standards or that another group was discussing that matter and it was not properly the concern of the group in which it had been raised. Home teachers from throughout the country were present and were considering the standards affecting their specialty. The overwhelming majority apparently disagreed with a particular item in the COMSTAC document and suggested that a vote be taken to determine the sentiments of the group. They were informed by the discussion leader that a vote certainly would not be taken but that their views would be reported to COMSTAC, which had the sole responsibility for deciding such matters. Throughout the summer and fall of 1965 promises were repeatedly made that copies of the proposed COMSTAC standards would be made available. They were forthcoming, hundreds of pages of them--three days prior to the final conference in New York City, which brought together hundreds of agency representatives for the announced purpose of arriving at a final consensus. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and I attended that conference. Again, the democracy and fair play with which it was conducted were novel. One had to indicate in writing ahead of time which particular group discussion he would like to attend. There was no assurance that his choice would be honored. He might be assigned to another group. He could not move from group to group at all. If he had not received a special invitation, he could not attend the meetings. COMSTAC appointees were stationed at the door to check credentials, and I personally witnessed the turning away of one agency director who had been critical of COMSTAC. It is no wonder that the blind people of the country felt apprehensive. What type of standards were likely to emerge from a commission so appointed and so conducted? Not only the blind but also many of the agencies expressed concern. Many felt that the AFB and federal rehabilitation officials (unwittingly aided by people of prestige in the broader community) would impose a system of rigid controls--which would stifle initiative, foster domination, and take the emphasis off of real service and place it on bureaucracy, red tape, and professional jargon. It was further felt that what purported to begin as a voluntary system would (once firmly established) become mandatory. The AFB and other proponents of COMSTAC and its successor organization, NAC, vigorously denied these assertions. COMSTAC and NAC were to be truly independent. Their very watchword was to be objectivity. They were to be the means of improving services to blind people throughout the country and the vehicle for progressive thought and constructive change. Readers of the Braille Monitor will remember that from 1965 through 1968 a detailed analysis was made of the COMSTAC and NAC reports and activities. The fact that the Federation has not called attention in recent months to COMSTAC and NAC should not lead the blind to believe that the threat has passed or the situation improved. Quite the contrary is the case. The question of NAC's independence, for example, is no longer a matter for serious debate. The Scriptures tell us that "where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also." In an official NAC document entitled "Budget Comparison--1968 and 1969," dated April 15, 1968, the following items appear. "Total approved budget calendar year 1968, $154,034; total projected calendar year 1969, $154,000. Estimated income 1968: grant from American Foundation for the Blind $70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare $75,000. Estimated income 1969: grant from American Foundation for the Blind $70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare $70,000." Today (in 1971) the overwhelming majority of NAC's funds still come from HEW and the American Foundation for the Blind. Many of the NAC meetings are held at the AFB building in New York, and the executive director of NAC is a former Foundation staff member, the same one who was on "loan" to COMSTAC. When the first annual NAC awards were given, in 1970, it may be of significance that two recipients were named: Mr. Jansen Noyes, President of the Board of Directors of the American Foundation for the Blind; and Miss Mary Switzer, the long-time head of rehabilitation in the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Even more to the point may be Miss Switzer's comments upon that occasion as reported in the NAC minutes of April 24, 1970: "She predicted that difficult times might lie ahead if agencies accept the idea of standards but do nothing about them. The expending or withholding of public money can provide the incentive that is needed." Thus spoke Miss Switzer, confirming what Federation leaders had predicted and COMSTAC spokesmen had denied a decade ago. The full meaning of Miss Switzer's statement was spelled out by Alexander Handel, Executive Director of NAC, as reported in the NAC minutes of April 25, 1970: "Mr. Handel reported a new and important step in encouraging accreditation. The Council of State Administrators has passed a resolution that by July 1, 1974, state rehabilitation agencies will require that agencies from which they purchase services be accredited." The use of the word "encouraging" in this context is almost reminiscent of George Orwell's double-think and new-speak of 1984--only thirteen years away, at that. Perhaps sooner. The "encouraging" of agencies to seek accreditation from NAC will probably be called by some by the ugly name of blackmail. The pressure for conformity and the concentration of power could well be the most serious threat to good programs for the blind in the decade ahead. Federationists who attended the 1966 Louisville convention will remember that a report on COMSTAC and NAC was given at that time. I had been officially asked to serve on the NAC board. The offer was, of course, tokenism of the most blatant sort; and the question was whether to accept, leaving the Federation open to the charge of approving NAC actions, or to reject, exposing us to the charge of non-cooperation and leaving us with no means of observing and getting information. Federationists will remember that it was decided that I should accept the invitation. Thus, I have been a member of the NAC board since its inception. In the spring of 1970 I was elected to another three-year term. There are more than thirty NAC board members, of whom I am one. While expressing my minority views, I have tried to be personally congenial and friendly with the NAC board members. Nevertheless, tokenism remains tokenism. The other members of the board not only seemed unconcerned with but unaware of the non- representative character of NAC. It is as if General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and American Motors should set up a council and put six or seven officials from each of their companies on its board and then ask the UAW to contribute a single representative. What would the unions do in such a situation? What would racial minorities do if their representative organizations were offered such tokenism--in the establishment and promulgation of standards affecting their lives? I think we know what they would do. They would take both political and court action, and they would instigate mass demonstrations. Perhaps the blind should take a leaf from the same book. We cannot and should not exhibit endless patience. We cannot and should not forever tolerate the intolerable. I continue to sit on the NAC board, but I often wonder why. It does not discuss the real problems which face the blind today or the methods of solving those problems. In fact, NAC itself may well be more a part of the problem than the solution. I repeat that tokenism by any other name is still tokenism. In May of 1969, for instance, I received a document from NAC entitled "Statement of Understanding Among National Accreditation Council, National Industries for the Blind and the General Council of Workshops for the Blind." This document was sent to all NAC board members with the request that they vote to approve or disapprove it. It contained six points, of which one and five are particularly pertinent. They are as follows: "1. By June 30, 1970, all NIB affiliated shops shall have either: a. applied to NAC for accreditation and submitted a self-study guide (or) b. applied to the General Council for a Certificate of Affiliation with NIB and submitted a self-study guide. 5. Certificates of Affiliation with NIB entitle shops to membership in the General Council and to access through NIB to: a. Government business allocated by NIB, b. Commercial business allocated by NIB, c. Consulting services of NIB, d. Any and all other benefits of NIB affiliation." In other words if a workshop for the blind wishes any contracts from the federal government, it had better get into line and "volunteer" for accreditation by NAC. No pressure, of course, merely a system of "voluntary accreditation!" As you might expect, I voted no on the NIB agreement. Along with my ballot, I sent the following comments: "I do not approve this statement because I do not believe government contracts and other benefits to workshops should be conditioned upon their accreditation by NAC. Rather, receipt of government contracts and other benefits should depend upon the quality of performance of the workshop in question. Does the shop pay at least a minimum wage? Do its workers have the rights associated with collective bargaining? What sort of image of blindness does it present to the public? "Prior to NAC (in the days of COMSTAC) many of us said that NAC would become a vehicle for blackmail--dressed out nicely, of course, in professional jargon. It would appear that the prophecy is beginning to come true, earlier assurances to the contrary notwithstanding." As I say, I voted no. What do you suppose the final tally of the ballots indicated? Twenty-seven yes votes and one no vote. How different the results might have been if there had been equal representation of the blind themselves and the agencies! Yes, tokenism is still tokenism. In order that my position cannot be twisted or misinterpreted I would like to say that the quarrel is not with the concept of accreditation itself. Rather, we object to what is being done in the name of accreditation. Proper accreditation by a properly accredited group is a constructive thing. What NAC is doing is something else altogether. There is, of course, not time here to go into the details of all of the standards originally developed by COMSTAC and how being fostered by NAC, but a brief sample is sufficient to make the point. Federationists will remember that the Braille Monitor for February, 1966, carried an analysis of the COMSTAC standards on physical facilities. That analysis said in part: -------------------- The standards [on physical facilities] are perhaps notable chiefly in that they are so vague and minimal as to be equally applicable to office buildings, nursing homes, or universities by the simple substitution of the names of these other facilities.... Perhaps a brief run-down of the standards themselves would serve as the best and most complete illustration (headings theirs). 1. Overall Suitability--The total facility is constructed to best serve the needs of the particular agency. It will adequately serve everyone concerned. It will meet the requirements of its governing body, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the city building code. The physical facilities will be helpful to the program. 2. Location--The facility is located where it can easily be reached by staff, clients, and others who need to use it. The facility should be close to shopping and other community interests. The location is reasonably safe, with hazards minimized. 3. Grounds--The grounds will be large enough to allow for future expansion. They will be pleasant ("free of undue nuisances and hazards,"), with parking areas and roadways. Signs will be posted to help people locate the proper areas. 4. Activity Area--The layout of the facility will be efficient. The facility will be designed for the planned activities, will be large enough and well organized (reception rooms next to entries, work areas together, etc.). Sufficient maintenance will be provided for. 5. Privacy--People will have as much privacy as individual cases call for. Confidentiality will be maintained. 6. Health and Safety--The health and safety codes of the community will be met. Sufficient heat and light will be provided. Sanitary conditions will be as good as possible. Suitable entries will be provided for wheelchairs, etc. Safety features will be related to the level of competence of the occupants, the activities undertaken, and the equipment used. Adequate first aid facilities are provided. 7. Fire and Disaster Protection--All buildings will be so designed and equipped as to minimize the danger of fire. The buildings will be inspected by local authorities and/or independent authorities and records of inspection kept. Smoking areas are clearly specified. Proper protection shall be provided the occupants of the facility to minimize danger should fire or disaster occur. Suitable fire extinguishers will be provided. Fire alarms will be installed as to be heard throughout the facility. Fire drills will be held irregularly. Special provisions will be made for fire warnings to deaf-blind. 8. Maintenance--"The condition of the physical facility gives evidence of planful and effective maintenance and housekeeping." 9. Remodeling--When remodeling is undertaken, it should be to best suit the needs of the program. The preceding is an inclusive summary! One can imagine the breadth of interpretation that can result from application of these standards. One can also imagine the range of individual whim and axe-grinding, not to say blackmail and favoritism, that can enter into the proposed accreditation of agencies for the blind based on such vague and capricious requirements. The danger to be anticipated is the possibility of varying application of standards to friends and foes when "accrediting" agencies.... One is tempted to dismiss this entire report of "Standards for Physical Facilities" with the single word, "Blah!" But more intensive study indicates otherwise. Tucked away among the platitudes and the generalities are the age-old misconceptions and stereotypes. What, for instance, is meant by the requirement that a facility for the blind be located near to shopping and other community interests, and that it be in a location reasonably safe, with hazards minimized? The exact words of the committee are, "Where undue hazards cannot be avoided, proper measures are instituted to assure the safety of all persons coming to the agency. (For example, where an agency is on a street with heavy traffic, a light or crosswalk or other means is available for safe crossing by blind persons.)" If this standard is simply meant to express the general pious platitude that everybody ought to be as safe as possible, then what a farcical and pathetic waste of time and money to assemble a committee to spell out what everybody already knows. On the other hand, if the standard means to imply that the blind are not able to live and compete among the ordinary hazards of the regular workaday world and that they need more shelter and care than others, the implications are not only false but the are insidiously vicious. Of a similar character is the committee's statement that the grounds must "provide pleasant and appropriate surroundings, and be free of undue nuisances and hazards." Surely we do not need a special commission on standards and accreditation to tell us that people should live in pleasant surroundings that are free of undue hazards, if this is all that is meant. If, however, the committee is saying that the blind require surroundings that are more "pleasant and free from hazards" than the surroundings required by other people, one cannot help but be unhappily reminded of the 19th century concept that the blind should be entertained and provided with recreation, that they should be helped in every way possible to "live with their misfortune." If this type of analysis seems blunt, one can only reply that this is no time for nice words and mousy phrases. The people who were formerly the Commission on Standards, and are now the National Accreditation, hold themselves out to the public at large as the qualified experts, the people who have the right to make standards and grant or refuse accreditation to all and the sundry. These are not children indulging in the innocent games of childhood. They are adults, playing with the lives of hundreds of people. -------------------- Federationists should review the Braille Monitor from 1965 through 1968 to study the COMSTAC reports in light of present developments. I have not tried here to analyze the content of those reports. Mostly it is bad, and the standards and rules established by COMSTAC and NAC harmful. Let anyone who doubts this assertion read the COMSTAC reports and the Monitor analyses. They speak for themselves. One final matter requires comment. At a recent meeting of the National Accreditation Council I was telling a new member of the board (a prominent businessman totally uninformed about the problems faced by the blind) that I thought most of the actions of NAC were irrelevant. He seemed surprised and said something to this effect: "If you think what we are doing here is not relevant, what is relevant?" To which I said, "Last fall a blind man in Minneapolis (a person who had worked for several years as a computer programmer at Honeywell and was laid off because of the recession) applied to take a civil service examination for computer programmer with the city of Minneapolis. His application was rejected, on the grounds of blindness. The National Federation of the Blind helped him with advice and legal counsel. As a result, he took the examination, and he now has a job with the city of Minneapolis as a computer programmer. "How many of the people who are on the NAC board," I asked, "are even aware that such an incident occurred? How many of them think it is important?" "Or," I went on, "consider another incident. A few weeks ago in Ohio a blind high school senior (duly elected by her class) was denied the right to attend the American Legion Girls' State. The story was carried nationwide by United Press, and the matter is still pending. Do you see any of these people here today concerned or excited about this case? Do you see them trying to do anything about it?" "Well," my companion replied, "your organization seems to be working on matters like this. Maybe NAC is doing good in other areas." "The difficulty," I told him, "is that the actions of NAC are helping to create the kind of problem situations I have been describing to you." "How?" he asked me. "NAC," I said, "accredits workshops, for instance. What kind of standards does it use in determining whether a shop should be approved and presented to the public as a worthy and progressive institution? NAC is concerned about whether the workshop has a good accounting system. It is concerned about good pay and good working conditions for the professional staff (almost all of them sighted). It is concerned with the physical facilities and (perhaps) whether there is a psychologist or psychiatrist available to minister to the blind workers. But what about minimum wages for those same blind workers, or the right of collective bargaining, or grievance committees? On such items NAC is silent. It will accredit a sheltered shop which pays less than fifty cents an hour to its blind workers. By so doing, it puts its stamp of approval on such practices. It helps perpetuate the system that has kept the blind in bondage and made them second-class citizens through the centuries. It helps to slam the door on the computer programmer in Minneapolis and the high school student in Ohio. Worst of all, perhaps, it reinforces and helps to continue the myth that blindness means inferiority, that the blind are unable to compete on terms of equality in regular industry or the professions, that the blind should be grateful for what they have and stay in their places. The workshop example is only that, an example. The same theme is everywhere present in NAC's action and standards--and, for that matter, in its very makeup." As we talked, my businessman companion seemed shocked that there were sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage to blind workers. Yet, he is on the NAC board, lending his name to the accreditation. I pointed out to him a variety of other ways in which the work of NAC is helping to promote misconceptions about blindness and add to our problems. I can only hope that the seeds I planted will bear fruit. To round out the picture we are considering today, one further item might be mentioned. The April 25, 1968 minutes of NAC report as follows: "Over thirty agencies and schools have indicated, in writing, an interest in applying for accreditation. Official applications have been received from six agencies. Some of these have already paid the application fee. The American Council of the Blind is the first membership association to apply for membership in the National Accreditation Council." In a letter dated July 11, 1968, from Alexander Handel, Executive Director of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, to members of the NAC Board of Directors an article is discussed which appears in the July, 1968, issue of the Braille Forum (the official publication of the American Council of the Blind). The article says in part: "It should be emphasized, however, that from the first, ACB officers and members actively consulted with the various committees developing the standards, and ACB was the only national organization of the blind which both participated in and financially supported the National Conference on Standards which led to the formation of the National Accreditation Council." I give you this quotation without comment. It speaks for itself. So do the actions of NAC. I presume all of you have read the exchange of correspondence concerning the appearance of NAC representatives at this meeting today. The contempt and condescension inherent in NAC's bland assumption that it was proper to reject our invitation to appear at this convention because a debate might occur are clear for all to see. Likewise, the agreement just concluded between NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind whereby the Foundation will work with agencies and help prepare them for accreditation is equally revealing. In any case the one central point which must be repeatedly hammered home is the total irrelevance of NAC as it is now constituted and as it is now performing. What we need today and in the years ahead is not more detailed standards but a real belief in the competence and innate normality of blind people, a willingness on the part of agency officials to help blind people secure meaningful training and competitive employment, a recognition that the blind are able to participate fully in the mainstream of American life. We need acceptance and equality, not shelter and care. When seen in this light, NAC must be viewed as one of our most serious problems in the decade ahead. The blind of the nation should thoroughly inform themselves about its activities and should insist upon a voice in determining the character of programs affecting their lives. We should insist that state and federal governments not delegate their powers of setting standards for state agencies to a private group, which is not responsive to the needs or views of the consumers of the services. It is true that many of the agencies doing work with the blind need to be reformed and improved, but NAC is not the entity to do it. We the organized blind intend (in the best tradition of American democracy) to have something to say about the scope and direction of the reform and the improvement. We are not children, nor are we psychological cripples. We are free citizens, fully capable of participating in the determination of our own destiny, and we have every right and intention of having something to say about what is done with our lives. NAC AT 25: A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS by Peggy Pinder Anniversaries are times to pause and look back, to take stock and contemplate the future. As everyone in the blindness field knows, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) is approaching its twenty-fifth birthday, so the time would seem right for an in-depth look. What has NAC done? Where has it been, and where is it going? At the time of its founding, NAC proclaimed that it would serve the "universe of agencies" serving blind people in the United States. It said that this universe consisted of approximately 500 agencies. The major agencies in the blindness field are, of course, the state vocational rehabilitation agencies, the schools, and the sheltered shops. Each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia has a rehabilitation agency (total 51). The American Foundation for the Blind lists 71 schools in its Directory of Services for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons in the United States, 23rd Edition, Copyright, 1988. National Industries for the Blind lists 80 workshops on its roster. Thus, there should be a total of about 200 major agencies in the United States. From these numbers it can easily be seen that NAC contemplated accrediting all of the large mainstream agencies, as well as about 300 of the smaller regional or city- based agencies scattered throughout the country. But in its first quarter century, how has it measured up? Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies The federal Rehabilitation Services Administration identifies one agency in each state and the District of Columbia to receive the congressionally appropriated vocational rehabilitation money to give services to the blind of that state. The number of state agencies that have agreed to accept NAC accreditation has always been low. A mere ten of these agencies held NAC accreditation in 1990. These ten are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Virginia. This means that after nearly twenty-five years of arduous work NAC can claim as members fewer than twenty percent of the state agencies delivering basic services to the blind of the continental United States. But the small number of accredited state rehabilitation agencies is not the entire story. NAC holds itself out as the nation's standard-setter in work with the blind. How do these ten agencies perform? Leaders of the blind from throughout the nation were surveyed on this point. Each survey respondent travels around the country regularly, and routinely discusses matters concerning blindness with people living across the nation. These leaders have the sophistication and the information to look beyond agency claims of achievement to the results of agency work in the lives of blind men and women, state by state and in comparison with other agencies. Survey respondents were asked to list the ten worst vocational rehabilitation agencies in the country without knowing why the list was wanted. In every single case, eight or nine of the NAC-accredited agencies appeared on the list. As one survey respondent commented, "If you are a blind person living in one or another of most of these ten states, it is almost impossible for you to get quality services." Schools As has been said, the American Foundation for the Blind lists seventy-one schools in its Directory of Services. Of these, only 26 schools (or 37 percent) have agreed to accept NAC accreditation. Workshops Of the 80 workshops listed on the roster of National Industries for the Blind, only 33 (or 41 percent) have agreed to accept NAC accreditation. While workshops are accredited in the highest proportion of the three major service categories, it must be remembered that National Industries for the Blind offered four years ago to pay all costs of accreditation for any workshop that would agree to accredit. The offer has been available for those four years, and it remains available today. In view of this free offer (and there has been a great deal of pressure to accept it) a showing of only forty-one percent is astonishingly low. As recent events have demonstrated, NAC is not loved by a majority of the workshops. In fact, from 1986 through 1990, only two workshops agreed to accept NAC accreditation while three dropped it. Totals Approaching its twenty-fifth anniversary, NAC has accredited only 34 percent of the agencies in the three large service categories. At the moment (late 1990) it is accrediting only ninety-seven agencies in the United States--fewer than one-fifth of the universe it defined for itself at its founding. It also accredits one agency in Canada. The Rest of the Ninety-Eight Who are the other agencies accredited by NAC, the ones not included on any of the lists of the three major service-provider types? These are entities drawn from that three hundred-agency figure NAC placed in its original estimate of five hundred agencies to accredit--the regional and city-based agencies around the country. The list of NAC-accredited agencies is conspicuously padded. Almost one-third of the list of NAC members (twenty-eight) do not appear on any of the three lists of major service providers. That is quite a high proportion of smaller agencies, but they swell NAC's list of adherents, bringing it to its current size. Yet, this is a mere ten percent of the three hundred smaller agencies originally defined by NAC. Here is a sampling: Center for the Partially Sighted, Santa Monica, California; Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, North Ft. Myers; Vision Enrichment Services, Grand Rapids, Michigan; the Alliance for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Memphis, Tennessee; and the Sight Center, Toledo, Ohio. Geography An odd geographical pattern emerges from an analysis of the NAC-accredited agencies. A mere thirteen are accredited by NAC from that vast part of the country that lies west of Nebraska--roughly the Mountain Time Zone and farther west. Apparently, as one gets farther from New York, the influence of NAC wanes in proportion. And nearly half of these western accredited agencies lie within the borders of Arizona--the home of NAC'S long-time and belligerently loyal former executive director, Richard Bleecker. In fact, if one counts the accredited agencies in four states (Arizona, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania), one has accounted for one-third (thirty-two) of the NAC list. Yet it would be very hard to find anyone familiar with the conditions of blind people in these four states and throughout the rest of the country who would maintain that these four lead the rest in excellence--or, for that matter, even fall within the top ranks. Sixteen states have no NAC-accredited agencies at all. They are: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming. Fifteen more states have only one NAC-accredited agency. They are: Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Costs to Agencies What are the costs of this accreditation which so very many agencies have chosen to reject? There are several. One (and only one) is the actual outlay of cash. In the course of considering re-accreditation, the Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped recently reviewed the following figures: $12,000 annual accreditation fees ($2,400 per year for each of five years) $5,000 cost to agency for on-site review team Total for the five-year period, $17,000 According to Grant Mack, one of NAC's principal proponents, the annual dues are figured on a sliding scale at 0.0075 of annual budget. However, the minimum is $250, and the scale escalates quickly to reach the top level of $2,250 per year, according to Mack, who says that no agency is required to pay more than this top figure, regardless of budget. If Mack has accurately described the assessment schedule, then any agency with an income in excess of $300,000 will pay the top assessment. At any rate, according to those close to the situation in Virginia, the agency was assured by NAC officials that the on-site review would be conducted as cheaply as possible. In other words, review team members would be brought from nearby, saving travel costs. It should be noted that it took the Virginia Department several years beyond its 5-year accreditation term to decide to accept re-accreditation by NAC. During this time (and in flagrant violation of its own carefully-stated accreditation standards) NAC simply continued the accreditation status of the Virginia agency even though the annual fee was not paid and the agency did not request continuation of its accredited status. Obviously NAC hoped to convince Virginia to sign up again and was willing to beg, wheedle, and pay to get the job done. One can be certain that the Virginia review team members (when they are appointed) will not only be from nearby but will also be strongly predisposed to grant the re-accreditation just to keep Virginia in the fold--a predisposition which necessarily defeats the purpose of the on-site review. NAC estimated that the review would cost $3,500, but Virginia officials are sure that the cost will reach at least $5,000 unless the hand-picked members of the team don't pass along their costs. Based on NAC's conservative figures, accreditation will cost Virginia over $3,000 per year for the five-year accreditation period. Using more realistic figures and adding in the costs of the self-study, it is more likely to cost $4,000 to $6,000 per year. In fact, another agency recently considering NAC accreditation was told that the cost would be $6,000 to $7,000 per year. But there is a second, hidden cost not directly paid to NAC--the self-study. This step in the accreditation process is performed before the on-site team arrives. Virginia Department staff declined to estimate the cost for this preliminary step of re-accreditation. They did so, based on NAC's assurances that the self-study step could be accomplished very inexpensively by merely copying the work that was done the previous time onto the new forms, with obvious and appropriate updating of information. This portrayal of the self-study by NAC is widely at variance with the other version which it usually puts forward when it is touting the rigor and thoroughness of its procedures to the public and to foundation and federal officials. This alternate version holds that the self-study is the heart of the accreditation process, the means by which staff members working at the agency can step back and (with the help of professionally- created assessment tools) review from the loftier perspective of goals, objectives, and missions the operation of the institution in which they do their day-to-day tasks. In this view of self- study, involved staffers disengage themselves from their normal duties, offer honest assessments, and learn how they and their agency can work better through honest self-analysis and clear- headed criticism. Done this way, the self-study would necessarily cost thousands and thousands of dollars in staff time. The final cost paid by an agency accrediting with NAC is that of soured relations with the blind community. NAC is offensive and insulting to many blind people, and an accredited agency can expect that its NAC membership will complicate its on- going relationship with members of the blind community. Some agencies do not choose to engage in this interaction with blind consumers, so they are (at least, in the short run) unaware of this fact of life. Agencies that are interested in their blind clients and wish to avoid a source of conflict simply decline association with NAC or abandon the relationship created by others before them. Expansion and Attrition In its early years NAC experienced steady growth in its list of accredited agencies. NAC acquired half of all the agencies it has ever accredited in its first eight years, and during the same time period (1968-1975) it did not lose a single agency. After 1975 the picture changed. NAC began to lose agencies in 1976. In no year after 1975 has NAC accredited more than ten new agencies. In one year, 1988, it accredited no new agencies. NAC's peak year was 1986 when it had 104 member agencies. Since that time the trend has been steadily downward. In the most recent five-year period, 1986-1990, NAC accredited ten new agencies while sixteen dissociated themselves from it. Benefits of NAC Accreditation People generally pay money in exchange for some benefit, and institutions do the same. What one gets from NAC is the questionable privilege of using its seal of approval and the even more questionable honor of a place on its list of accredited agencies. People often ask what else the agency gets. The answer is nothing. Some describe the NAC seal as aesthetically unpleasant, symbolically offensive, and otherwise worthless. (It is a stylized eye--an odd symbol for blindness.) NAC adherents describe the seal as symbolizing the agency's upholding of the high-quality standards approved by the profession itself. Either way, that is all there is to it. There is no other benefit to NAC accreditation. NAC has tried for years to add a third dimension to its accreditation. This attempt can best be described as an effort at legalized blackmail since it would actually be a form of compelled adherence to NAC. NAC has tried repeatedly to condition every agency's receipt of vocational rehabilitation funds on NAC accreditation. NAC has recently coined a term for this concept, calling it "linkage." NAC has declared that it will seek linkage of accreditation with funding in the 1991 reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. If NAC has its way, no state rehabilitation agency will get federal money unless the agency is accredited. With the low number of vocational rehabilitation agencies currently agreeing to accept NAC accreditation, this will clearly be an uphill battle with no chance of ultimate success. In its most recent attempt to foster linkage, NAC sought to have National Industries for the Blind (one of NAC's strongest supporters) take a stand in favor of "linkage." Even the NIB board, which is supporting NAC financially, refused to adopt a resolution supporting compelled accreditation. (See the article entitled "NIB, NAC, and Tanstaafl" elsewhere in this issue.) NAC Agencies Whose Accreditation Expires in 1991 The following list shows agencies whose NAC accreditation (according to NAC's own statistics) expires in 1991. There are 37. Curiously, more than half of these 37 agencies originally had accreditation only through 1990. It appears that NAC simply extended the accreditation for 19 agencies from 1990 to 1991. Originally, there were 31 agencies whose accreditation expired in 1990. Of these 31, 8 were re-accredited, but for terms varying from two years to four years to the standard five-year re- accreditation period. One dissociated from NAC, and three are still shown as having their accreditation expire in 1990. Of the 31 agencies, only 9 were handled in some way by December of 1990. The vast majority of the 31 agencies whose accreditation was due to expire in 1990 are now shown as having their accreditation expire in 1991. There could be several reasons for this. One possibility is that NAC is so small that it simply cannot deal with the re-accreditation of 31 agencies in a single year. Another possibility is that some of the agencies whose accreditation was extended have no intention of re-accrediting, but NAC is trying to keep them in the fold by extending the accreditation while it pleads with them to stick around. Still another possibility (and one experienced by a number of agencies in the past) is that the agency has decided to dissociate itself from NAC but cannot convince NAC to take it off the list. For any or all of these reasons, the majority of agencies due to be re- accredited in 1990 are now scheduled to have their accreditation expire or be renewed in 1991. Those agencies listed by NAC as coming up for re- accreditation in 1991 are listed here. Those agencies whose names are starred once were originally scheduled for re-accreditation in 1990. Those agencies whose names are starred twice were originally scheduled for re-accreditation in 1989 or before and have been carried forward to 1991 by NAC. One final oddity appears on the 1990 list. Though NAC only managed to handle nine of the thirty-one agencies scheduled for handling in 1990, it found the time to deal with one agency scheduled for re- accreditation in 1991, the Arkansas School for the Blind. The Arkansas School is one of the oldest and staunchest adherents of NAC and, although its accreditation extended into 1991, NAC jumped it ahead of many agencies scheduled for 1990 review and has already re-accredited it. This commentary concerning NAC re- accreditation would not be complete without noting that the Arkansas School, according to NAC's records, received only a two- year extension of accreditation rather than the standard five years. Here is the list: Arizona State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired 12/91 Low Vision Services, Regional Eye Center (AZ) 12/91 Tucson Association for the Blind (AZ) 6/91 * Division of Services for the Blind (AR) 6/91 Conklin Center for Multihandicapped Blind (FL) 12/91 Suncoast Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired (FL) 12/91 * Visually Impaired Persons Center (FL) 12/91 Independence for the Blind (FL) 6/91 * Lighthouse for the Blind of the Palm Beaches (FL) 12/91 * Center for the Visually Impaired (GA) 12/91 Georgia Industries for the Blind 12/91 The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind (IL) 12/91 Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School 12/91 Louisiana Association for the Blind 6/91 Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ME) 12/91 * Maryland School for the Blind 6/91 * Perkins School for the Blind (MA) 6/91 ** Greater Detroit Society for the Blind (MI) 6/91 Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind (MN) 12/91 MSB (MN) 6/91 New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired 12/91 * Northeastern Association of the Blind at Albany (NY) 6/91 The Lighthouse, Inc. (NY) 12/91 * North Dakota School for the Blind 12/91 * Ohio State School for the Blind 12/91 ** The Sight Center (OH) 6/91 Parkview School (OK) 12/91 * Delaware County Branch, Pennsylvania Association for the Blind 12/91 * Pittsburgh Blind Association (PA) 6/91 * York County Blind Center (PA) 6/91 * Loaiza Cordera Institute for Blind Children (PR) 12/91 ** IN-SIGHT (RI) 6/91 * Tennessee School for the Blind 12/91 * Ed Lindsey Industries for the Blind (TN) 12/91 * Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind (TX) 6/91 * Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston (TX) 12/91 Utah School for the Blind 12/91 * ROLL CALL OF SHAME: A LIST OF NAC-ACCREDITED ORGANIZATIONS From the Editor: We do not vouch for the accuracy of this list. It represents NAC's claim of membership as of July, 1990. The blind and interested professionals should check this list well and verify that the agencies which are named actually admit to association with NAC. This, indeed, is a roll call of shame and should be treated accordingly. Alabama Services for Blind and Visually Handicapped Children and Adults of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind P. O. Box 698 Talladega, AL 35160 (205) 761-3200 Dr. Thomas S. Bannister, President, AIDB Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1993 Arizona Arizona State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired 4620 North 16th Street, Room 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602) 255-1850 Mr. K. Edward House, Manager Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Foundation for Blind Children 1201 North 85th Place Scottsdale, AZ 85257 (602) 947-3744 Mr. Chris Tompkins, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Department for the Visually Handicapped Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind P. O. Box 5545 Tucson, AZ 85703-0545 (602) 628-5357 Mr. Noel Stephens, Director Department for the Visually Handicapped Dr. Barry Griffing, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Low Vision Services Regional Eye Center Carondelet St. Joseph's Hospital 350 North Wilmot Road Tucson, AZ 85711 (602) 296-3211 Ms. Janet M. Dylla, Supervisor Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Tucson Association for the Blind 3767 East Grant Road Tucson, AZ 85716 (602) 795-1331 Mr. Jon Miller, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Arkansas Lions World Services for the Blind 2811 Fair Park Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72204 (501) 664-7100 Mr. James A. Cordell, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1994 Arkansas School for the Blind 2600 West Markham, Post Office Box 668 Little Rock, AR 72203 (501) 371-2109 Mr. Leonard Ogburn, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Division of Services for the Blind P. O. Box 3237 Little Rock, AR 72203 (501) 371-2587 Mr. James Hudson, Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 California Lions Blind Center 3834 Opal Street Oakland, CA 94609 (415) 654-2561 Ms. Barbara Green, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Sacramento Society for the Blind 2750 24th Street Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 452-8271 Mr. Thomas C. Ryan, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Center for the Partially Sighted 720 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401-1713 (213) 458-3501 Dr. Samuel M. Genensky, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Florida Conklin Center for Multihandicapped Blind 405 White Street Daytona Beach, FL 32014 (904) 258-3441 Mr. Edward F. McCoy, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Broward Center for the Blind 650 North Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311 (305) 463-4217 Dr. Elly du Pre, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1994 Florida Association of Workers for the Blind 601 South West Eighth Avenue Miami, FL 33130 (305) 856-2288 Mr. Vernon Metcalf, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1993 Suncoast Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc. P. O. Box 486 New Port Richey, FL 34656-0486 (813) 845-3770 Mr. Charles F. Jackson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Visually Impaired Persons Center P. O. Box 4026 North Fort Myers, FL 33918-4026 (813) 997-7797 Ms. Marian M. Geiger, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 School for the Blind Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084 (904) 823-4000 Mr. Jerry Stewart, Principal Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Division of Blind Services 2540 Executive Center Circle, West Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-1330 Mr. Carl McCoy, Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1994 Independence for the Blind 307 East Seventh Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 (904) 681-6835 Mr. Pinkney C. Seale, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind 1106 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 (813) 251-2407 Mr. Clifford E. Olstrom, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Lighthouse for the Blind of the Palm Beaches 7810 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33405 (407) 586-5600 Mr. William S. Thompson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Georgia Center for the Visually Impaired 763 Peachtree Street, N. E. Atlanta, GA 30308 (404) 875-9011 Miss Carolyn Kokenge, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Georgia Industries for the Blind P. O. Box 218 Bainbridge, GA 31717 (912) 248-2666 Mr. Clayton Penhallegon, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Georgia Academy for the Blind 2895 Vineville Avenue Macon, GA 31294 (912) 751-6083 Dr. Richard Hyer, Jr., Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Savannah Association for the Blind 64 Jasper Street P. O. Box 81 Savannah, GA 31405 (912) 236-4473 Mr. W. Chandler Simmons, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Hawaii Services for the Blind Branch 1901 Bachelot Street Honolulu, HI 96817 (808) 548-7408 Mrs. Jane Egi, Administrator Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Illinois The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind 1850 Roosevelt Road Chicago, IL 60608 (312) 666-1331 Mr. Milton Samuelson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December 1991 Philip J. Rock Center and School 818 DuPage Boulevard Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 (708) 790-2474 Mr. Raymond Miller, Chief Administrative Officer Ms. Christine Dorsey, Director Fiscal Year Ending: August Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 Illinois Bureau of Rehabilitation Services for the Blind 622 East Washington P. O. Box 19429 Springfield, IL 62794-9429 (217) 782-2093 Mr. Gil Johnson, Deputy Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Illinois School for the Visually Impaired 658 East State Street Jacksonville, IL 62650 (217) 245-4101 Dr. Richard G. Umsted, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Indiana Indiana School for the Blind 7725 North College Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 253-1481 Dr. Michael Bina, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1995 Iowa Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School 1002 G Avenue Vinton, IA 52349 (319) 472-5221 Mr. W. Dennis Thurman, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Louisiana The Lighthouse for the Blind 123 State Street New Orleans, LA 70118 (504) 899-4501 Mr. Regis Barber, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 Louisiana Association for the Blind 1750 Claiborne Avenue Shreveport, LA 71103 (318) 635-6471 Dr. Hank Baud, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Maine Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired 32 Winthrop Street Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 289-3484 Mr. Bud Lewis, Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Maine Center for the Blind 189 Park Avenue Portland, ME 04102 (207) 774-6273 Dr. Robert J. Crouse, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Maryland Maryland School for the Blind 3501 Taylor Avenue Baltimore, MD 21236 (301) 444-5000 Mr. Louis M. Tutt, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Massachusetts Perkins School for the Blind 175 North Beacon Street Watertown, MA 02172 (617) 924-3434 Mr. Kevin Lessard, Director Fiscal Year Ending: August Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Michigan Greater Detroit Society for the Blind 16625 Grand River Detroit, MI 48227 (313) 272-3900 Mr. Carroll L. Jackson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Visually Impaired Center, Inc. 725 Mason Street Flint, MI 48503 (313) 235-2544 Ms. Laurie McArthur, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1993 Vision Enrichment Services 215 Sheldon, S. E. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 458-1187 Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Minnesota Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind 2701 West Superior Street Duluth, MN 55806 (218) 624-4828 Mr. Michael Conlan, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 MSB 1936 Lyndale Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612) 871-2222 Mr. Steven A. Fischer, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Mississippi Royal Maid Association for the Blind P. O. Drawer 30, Hansen Road Hazlehurst, MS 39083 (601) 894-1771 Mr. John E. Granger, President Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Mississippi School for the Blind 1252 Eastover Drive Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 987-3952 Mr. John Parrisch, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Division of Vocational Rehabilitation for the Blind P. O. Box 4872, Fondren Station Jackson, MS 39216 (601) 354-6411 Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Missouri Kansas City Association for the Blind 1844 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 421-5848 Mr. Thomas Healy, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 New Hampshire New Hampshire Association for the Blind 25 Walker Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 224-4039 Mr. Gale N. Stickler, President Fiscal Year Ending: August Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 New Jersey St. Joseph's School for the Blind 253 Baldwin Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 (201) 653-0578 Mr. Herbert Miller, Administrator Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 648-3330 Mr. Gerard P. Boyle, Acting Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 New Mexico New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped 1900 North White Sands Boulevard Alamogordo, NM 88310 (505) 437-3505 Mr. Jerry Watkins, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1994 New York Northeastern Association of the Blind at Albany 301 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 11206 (518) 463-1211 Dr. Michael B. Freedman, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Programs for the Visually Impaired New York Institute for Special Education 999 Pelham Parkway Bronx, NY 10469 (212) 519-7000 Dr. Robert L. Guarino, Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 Helen Keller Services for the Blind 57 Willoughby Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 522-2122 Mr. Martin Adler, President Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1990 Blind Association of Western New York 1170 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14209 (716) 882-1025 Dr. Ronald S. Maier, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: October Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Catholic Guild for the Blind 1011 First Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 371-1000, Ext. 2520 Ms. Ann Therese Snyder, Administrative Director Fiscal Year Ending: August Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Jewish Guild for the Blind 15 West 65th Street New York, NY 10023 (212) 769-6200 Mr. John F. Heimerdinger, President and C.E.O. Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 The Lighthouse, Inc. 111 East 59th Street New York, NY 10022 (212) 355-2200 Dr. Barbara M. Silverstone, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Rockland County Association for the Visually Impaired Rockland County Health Center, Building C Pomona, NY 10970 (914) 354-0200, Ext. 2051 Mrs. Ruth C. Wein, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1995 Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired of Greater Rochester 422 South Clinton Avenue Rochester, NY 14620 (716) 232-1111 Mrs. Gidget Hopf, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: March Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Syracuse Association of Workers for the Blind 616 Salina Street Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 422-7263 Mr. Milton Rosenblum, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Central Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired 507 Kent Street Utica, NY 13501 (315) 797-2233 Mr. Donald L. LoGuidice, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Guiding Eyes for the Blind 611 Granite Springs Road Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 (914) 245-4024 Mr. Martin Yablonski, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1990 North Dakota North Dakota School for the Blind 500 Stanford Road Grand Forks, ND 58201 (701) 777-4144 Mr. Alan J. Mealka, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Ohio Cincinnati Association for the Blind 2045 Gilbert Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 221-8558 Mr. Carl R. Augusto, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1995 The Clovernook Center, Opportunities for the Blind 7000 Hamilton Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45231 (513) 522-3860 Dr. Gerald W. Mundy, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: April Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Ohio State School for the Blind 5220 North High Street Columbus, OH 43214 (614) 888-1154 Mr. Dennis L. Holmes, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Vision Center of Central Ohio 1393 North High Street Columbus, Ohio 43201 (614) 294-5571 Dr. Richard Oestreich, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 The Sight Center 1819 Canton Street Toledo, OH 43624 (419) 241-1183 Mr. Barry A. McEwen, President and C.E.O. Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Oklahomam Parkview School P. O. Box 309 Muskogee, OK 74403 (918) 682-6641 Mr. R. Max Casey, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Visual Services Unit Department of Human Services P. O. Box 25352 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 (405) 424-6006 Mr. Norman Dalke, Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1993 Oklahoma League for the Blind 501 North Douglas Avenue P. O. Box 24020 Oklahoma City, OK 73124 (405) 232-4644 Mr. LeRoy F. Saunders, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1993 Pennsylvania Delaware County Branch Pennsylvania Association for the Blind 100-106 West 15th Street Chester, PA 19013 (215) 874-1476 Mr. William J. DeAngelis, Managing Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Lancaster Association for the Blind 244 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 (717) 291-5951 Mr. Stephen Patterson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Feinbloom Vision Rehabilitation Center 1200 West Godfrey Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19141 (215) 276-6060 Dr. Anna Bradfield, Administrative Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Pittsburgh Blind Association 300 South Craig Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 682-5600 Mr. Dennis J. Huber, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 York County Blind Center 800 East King Street York, PA 17403 (717) 848-1690 Mr. William Rhinesmith, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Puerto Rico Loaiza Cordero Institute for Blind Children P. O. Box 8622, Santurce Station Santurce, PR 00910 (809) 723-9160, 722-2498 Mrs. Awilda Nunzez, Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Rhode Island In-Sight 43 Jefferson Boulevard Warwick, RI 02888 (401) 941-3322 Ms. Judith T. Smith, President Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 South Dakota South Dakota School for the Visually Handicapped 423 South East 17th Avenue Aberdeen, SD 57401 (605) 622-2580 Mrs. Marjorie Kaiser, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Tennessee Tennessee School for the Blind 115 Stewarts Ferry Pike Donnelson, TN 37214 (615) 885-2451 Mr. Ralph Brewer, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 The Alliance for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1331 Union Avenue, Suite 601 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 276-4444 Ms. Greta T. Tyler, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 Volunteer Blind Industries 758 West First South Street Morristown, TN 37814 (615) 586-3922 Mr. Roy Proffitt, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Ed Lindsey Industries for the Blind 4110 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, TN 37209 (615) 741-2251 Mr. Allen Broughton, Executive Vice President Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Texas Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1100 West 45th Street Austin, Texas 78756 (512) 454-8631 Dr. Philip Hatlen, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: August Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind P. O. Box 64420 Dallas, TX 75206 (214) 821-2375 Mr. Jeffrey Battle, President Fiscal Year Ending: September Accreditation Expires: June, 1991 Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston P. O. Box 13435 Houston, TX 77219 (713) 527-9561 Mr. Gibson M. DuTerroil, President Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind 607 Main Street Lubbock, TX 79401 (806) 747-4215 Mr. Robert Crain, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Utah Utah School for the Blind 742 Harrison Boulevard Ogden, UT 84404 (801) 399-3748 Mr. Dwight C. Moore, Coordinator Dr. David West, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1991 Virginia Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped 397 Azalea Avenue Richmond, VA 23227 (804) 371-3140 Mr. Don Cox, Commissioner Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Washington Lighthouse for the Blind P. O. Box C-14119 Seattle, WA 98114 (206) 322-4200 Mr. George Jacobson, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1992 Community Services for the Blind and Partially Sighted 9709 3rd Avenue, N. E., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-5556 Ms. June W. Mansfield, Executive Director Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: June, 1994 West Virginia West Virginia School for the Deaf and the Blind 301 East Main Street Romney, WV 26757 (304) 822-3521 Mr. Max Carpenter, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Wisconsin Industries for the Blind 3220 West Vliet Street Milwaukee, WI 53208 (414) 933-4319 Mr. John Clark, Executive Vice President Fiscal Year Ending: December Accreditation Expires: December, 1993 Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped 1700 West State Street Janesville, WI 53545 (608) 755-2950 Mr. William H. English, Superintendent Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1990 Visually Impaired Persons Program Milwaukee Area Technical College 1015 North Sixth Street Milwaukee, WI 53203 (414) 278-6838 Mr. George Sippl, Manager Fiscal Year Ending: June Accreditation Expires: December, 1992 Canada Centre for Sight Enhancement University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211, Ext. 6330 Dr. J. Graham Strong, Director Fiscal Year Ending: April 30 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994 HONOR ROLL OF PRIDE: A LIST OF AGENCIES WHICH HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM NAC ACCREDITATION From the Editor: The following twenty-six agencies can hold their heads high. They once agreed to accept NAC accreditation but have now withdrawn. The blind of the nation salute them. Why, one