THE BRAILLE MONITOR February, 1990 Kenneth Jernigan, Editor Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, and cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT National Office 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, orders for NFB literature, articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor should be sent to the National Office. * * * * Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ISSN 0006-8829 NFB NET BBS: (612) 696-1975 WorldWide Web: http://www.nfb.org BRAILLE MONITOR PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS FEBRUARY 1990 TOURING IN THE HEART OF TEXAS: MAKE YOUR PLANS NOW OF CHANDELIERS AND SHODDY PRACTICE IN ALABAMA: ANOTHER NAC AGENCY ROCKED BY SCANDAL by Barbara Pierce WHAT USE IS THE LONG WHITE CANE? by Sharon Duffy CONSUMERISM: IMPROVING THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM by Kenneth Jernigan COMMENTS ON THE AUDIT OF THE IDAHO COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND by Ramona Walhof ALABAMA REVISITED IN THE IOWA PEPPER MILL by Kenneth Jernigan THE FIGHTING ELVES by Michael Baillif REFLECTIONS ON THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT by Kenneth Jernigan THE PROBLEM WITH COALITIONS by Ted Young REPORT FROM THE NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED TROUBLE CONTINUES AT ASSOCIATED SERVICES FOR THE BLIND IN PHILADELPHIA I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY WASH OUR DISHES by Ron Schmidt LETTER TO HORIZON AIRLINES BLIND MEN AND ELEPHANTS by Hisham H. Ahmed IS PATRICK CRAZY? by Zach Shore REPORT FROM BLIND INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OF MARYLAND by Richard J. Brueckner RECIPES by Barbara Pierce MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1990 TOURING IN THE HEART OF TEXAS: MAKE YOUR PLANS NOW Attending Federation conventions always provides an excellent excuse to enjoy the sights in various cities around the United States. As you might expect, the opportunities available to us in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area during our golden anniversary convention Saturday, June 30 through Friday, July 6, 1990 will be unparalleled and unforgettable. As usual, Wednesday is our free afternoon and evening. This year it falls on the Fourth of July, and Texans really know how to celebrate a birthday be it a Texan's or a nation's. Amusement park enthusiasts already know about the wonders of Six Flags Over Texas, but they will be able to check out for themselves the claims of hair-raising rides and unforgettable spectacles. For those fans of the television program, Dallas, there will be a tour of the buildings in Dallas in which filming has been done as well as a lunch and tour of South Fork, the ranch home of J. R. Ewing. The bus trip, luncheon, and tour will cost about $25 a person; the fantasy is free. Kennedy buffs and committed shoppers will be attracted to the tour that explores both the Kennedy Memorial and the Kennedy Museum at the Book Depository before unloading the tour group at the West End shopping area, which includes some of the finest retail stores in all of Texas. Shop till you drop sounds like a formidable promise in Texas heat, but this tour features air conditioned comfort for those who want ample time for selecting their mementos. As plans stand now, Wednesday evening will offer a real Texas barbecue with all the trimmings, out under the Texas stars. Plans are not final, but it should be lots of fun for everyone who can't go home without sampling real Texas hospitality. At the close of the convention a lucky busload of Federationists will be able to enjoy a steak dinner followed by a true Texas rodeo, which Texans assure us is very different from the television version. So if this idea tickles your fancy, sign up for this opportunity as soon as you arrive at the hotel. Space is limited. On the other hand, if you have your heart set on going horse-back riding yourself while you are in the Lone Star State, you will be pleased to know that if enough of us are interested in riding, Glenn Crosby, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas, and the rest of the Texans will be able to organize a tour of a working ranch and enough riding to make us careful about sitting down for a day or two. The cost will probably be in the neighborhood of $40 a person, and the tour will take place on the Saturday following the convention, July 7. If you are interested in this proposed expedition, drop a line to Glenn Crosby before May 1, 1990, so that you will be included in the count. Those on his list will be contacted with further information. There are a surprising number of interesting museums in Dallas which you can get to easily if you have a car available or if you want to hop the airport bus into downtown Dallas. These include a wax museum; a transportation museum; a radio museum; and the Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum, which includes simulations of an earthquake and a tornado. If you would like to cast a vote for organizing an actual tour to any of these attractions or if you want to get your name on the list for horseback riding, contact Glenn Crosby at 1403 Cheshire Lane, Houston, Texas 77018. It's easy to organize a tour if there's enough interest in it, so let Glenn know what you'd like to do while you're attending the best Federation convention ever. And as you think of Dallas, don't forget all of the other possibilities: Nieman Marcus; the stadium where the Dallas Cowboys play, with possible interviews of personalities and examination of memorabilia; wonderful restaurants; and a great deal more. While you're making your plans for convention week, don't forget to make your reservation with the Hyatt Regency Hotel DFW, Post Office Box 619014, International Parkway, Dallas- Fort Worth Airport, Texas 75261; or call (214) 453-1234, or toll-free (800) 233-1234. The hotel will want a deposit or a credit card number. Our hotel rates continue to be the envy of all who know about them. For the 1990 convention they are: singles, $27; doubles, $30; triples, $33; and quads, $37. For more detailed information about the convention, see the November, 1989, issue of the Braille Monitor . The 1990 convention will be here before you know it. Don't miss out because you didn't get around to making your plans early. OF CHANDELIERS AND SHODDY PRACTICE IN ALABAMA: ANOTHER NAC AGENCY ROCKED BY SCANDAL by Barbara Pierce Maybe there is something about work with the blind that attracts disreputable people or encourages the proliferation of despicable human impulses. Maybe, like televangelists, agency personnel in this field are held in such reverence by the public at large that some of them begin to think they are above the law. Or perhaps it is merely the presence in the field of an accrediting body (NAC) that provides protection for virtually any shoddy practice (as long as only the blind are injured), perpetuating a network that inflates or fumigates professional reputations as required. NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped) may be dying, but it still provides a facade behind which many of its member agencies, and most especially their senior officials, seem to believe they can snuff out the dreams and sometimes the very lives of their clients or students while reaping substantial public commendation and personal financial rewards. Many of the blind in Alabama feel that Jack Hawkins, Dr. Jack Hawkins (who until July 2, 1989, was the President of the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind at Talladega) is a perfect example of this breed. In the ten years (1979-1989) during which he served as president of this NAC- accredited agency, he severely damaged the Institute's sheltered workshop, using its entire $900,000 nest egg, according to workshop officials, to handle bills the Institute failed to pay after an agency reorganization. His administration consistently invested more funds in the School for the Deaf than the School for the Blind, with such unfairness that even the deaf raised objections. In the opinion of many of the alumni, the AIDB Foundation, which Hawkins established, materially contributed to the increased segregation of both blind and deaf students from the larger community. The casual hiring practices of Hawkins' administration led, according to many, directly to bringing a man to the Institute who murdered four people associated with the agency. And as if all this were not enough, when in the summer of 1989 he moved out of Talladega to take the position of Chancellor at Alabama's Troy State University, he left behind him police investigations and Ethics Commission probes into two separate matters. He also took with him without authorization thousands of dollars worth of Alabama state property. Last year it was the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (see the March, 1989, Braille Monitor ). Now it is Alabama. What NAC-accredited agency will be next, and what has yet to be uncovered? But back to Alabama. Has Hawkins' reputation been destroyed by these revelations? It has certainly been tarnished, but astonishingly he continues to serve as a member of the American Foundation for the Blind's Board, and he has moved onward and, one presumes, upward to a university presidency. As to the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, it is not at all astonishing that it continues to enjoy NAC accreditation. After all, what is NAC accreditation for? The job at the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind which Hawkins left last summer at age forty-four paid him a reported salary of $85,000 a year with an additional expense account of $4,000, and his business travel and entertainment costs were, of course, reimbursed in addition. But there is more: He lived in the President's Mansion (their apt terminology, not ours) at the Institute a residence which included the services of a maid and gardener, and there is still more: To keep the wolf from scratching the paint from the door of this NAC-accredited mansion the state also reportedly paid for utilities (including phone). But even all of that was apparently not enough. The Hawkinses (as press accounts make painfully clear in minute detail) were permitted to purchase with state funds and to use a mind-boggling array of luxuries. It is hard to believe that the Troy State Chancellorship can be more attractive than what Hawkins had, but why else would he leave the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, where he had (as the saying goes) the world by the tail with a downhill drag? The Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind (AIDB) in Talladega essentially provides such services as there are for the deaf and the blind of the state. The Institute consists of the industries program (a large sheltered shop, producing an impressive array of products and providing jobs for more than 300 blind and physically handicapped people); the E. H. Gentry Technical School (offering limited rehabilitation and post-secondary training in some fifteen trades); the Helen Keller School (serving deaf-blind and other severely handicapped children from a number of states); the School for the Deaf; and the School for the Blind. The Governor of Alabama appoints a Board of Trustees to oversee this conglomerate, and the board hires the President of the Institute. Until the early 1980's the adult programs at the Institute had a more or less autonomous director, who (like the Institute's President) answered directly to the Legislature and prepared and managed a budget separate from that of the rest of the Institute. But all things change, and in September of 1979 thirty-four-year-old Dr. Jack Hawkins, Jr., was appointed President of the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. He was (according to those who observed him for the past decade) young, energetic, and ambitious so ambitious that he was not content merely to be president of AIDB. He persuaded his board to give him extra power and responsibility. In addition to the presidency of the Institute they appointed him to be director of Adult Services so that he alone would report to the Legislature and so that only through his office would flow the budget appropriations for the entire conglomerate. Presumably it was argued that this reorganization would result in eliminating duplication and waste, thus increasing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the entire administration. But the financial figures that have now come to light reveal that something else happened instead something that had drained funds from Adult Services to the great benefit of the School for the Deaf. In 1988 the Alabama Legislature budgeted just under ten million dollars for the Institute's Children and Youth Services, which includes the School for the Blind, the School for the Deaf, the Helen Keller School, and the Parent-Infant Preschool Program. Adult Services received an appropriation of about three and a half million dollars, and the Industries Program got about one and a half million. According to sources close to the Industries Program, this last appropriation is intended to cover the expenses incurred in providing daily transportation for workshop workers and in subsidizing the wages of those workers who cannot work competitively. Though Industries' staff members seem not to have access to the figures that would reveal how much profit or deficit their program is running, they report that Adult Services was expected in 1988 to find almost three quarters of a million dollars as its contribution to what was called Shared Services the concept here being that each component of the Institute should contribute toward defraying the costs of the services that they all share. With a combined budget of less than half that of the Children and Youth Allocation, Adult Services was suddenly asked to cover sizable new chunks of the Shared Services budget and to do so without any increase in its budget. One is left to conclude that the Industries program must have been showing a profit since Adult Services did manage to produce the funds demanded for shared programs. According to a confidential document, which was inadvertently released by the Institute, during the first eleven months of the 1988 fiscal year Adult Services contributed the following amounts in several categories of these Shared Services: $47,954 of the $65,000 salary paid to the Vice President whose duties included supervision of the Industries program; $134,000 for health services (according to Industries sources, this bought workers three hours a week of a nurse's time); $44,598, a little more than half of the President's salary; $13,739, about one quarter of the salary of the Executive Assistant to the President; $147,410, for the business affairs office; $26,583, half of the Development Officer's salary; $13,062, half of the cost of running the Publications Office; $9,966, about a fifth of the Public Affairs Officer's salary; and $5,424, half of the salary of the President's maid a salary which, unlike those of the professionals on the staff, would seem to be anything but queenly. Annualized, Adult Services assessments for shared services for the 1988 fiscal year total $720,000, and Adult Services officials and area legislators reportedly pleaded with the Institute's President and the Board to reduce the amount for fiscal 1989. But for whatever reason, the 1989 assessment against Adult Programs was set at $801,000. Also effective in 1989, the Board voted to transfer $500,000 from the Adult Programs unrestricted fund money not provided by the state for specific uses and therefore, almost certainly, profits earned by the blind workers and plowed back into the Industries Program to be used for future funding projects, according to a resolution passed at the August, 1988, Board of Trustees meeting. Apparently the fund transfer will enable the institution to use the money for construction projects on its school campuses. At the same time all this was happening, the sheltered shop staff was learning the hard way that their bills seemed to be the last ones paid by the Institute, now that the Industries Program was not independently responsible for its own budget and bill-paying. According to those close to the Industries Program, by March of 1988 the shop owed some 1.3 million dollars to suppliers a revelation which the staffers found astonishing and infuriating. Even National Industries for the Blind made inquiries about when the Alabama shop planned to pay its outstanding bills. Rumor has it, however, that by September of 1989 the amount owed was down to $198,000 and that at the end of the year the slate had been wiped clean. But a decade ago the Industries Program had a nest egg of $900,000 set aside for large equipment purchase and meeting emergencies a pot of gold which seems to be entirely gone now. Shop workers and management don't usually agree on much at Alabama Industries for the Blind, but the one clear exception is the notion that merging their Program with the rest of the Institute under Dr. Hawkins has been bad for the shop and bad for the state's blind adults. In the Alabama Code of 1975 the Legislature clearly established the separation between Children and Youth Services and the Adult Programs, so when Hawkins made his grab, there was a growing restiveness. By the late 1980s concerned citizens encouraged a local legislator (Clarence Haynes) to request the Alabama Attorney General to render an opinion on the legality of the Hawkins reorganization. On February 24, 1989, the Attorney General handed down his opinion, clearly stating that the Hawkins reorganization is illegal. Here is what the Attorney General said: ____________________ Don Siegelman Attorney General Montgomery, Alabama February 24, 1989 Honorable Clarence E. Haynes Member, House of Representatives Talladega, Alabama Dear Representative Haynes: This opinion is issued in response to your request for an opinion from the Attorney General. Question: Can the department of adult blind and deaf be combined with the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind? Facts and Analysis: The statute establishing the department of adult blind and deaf is found at Code of Alabama 1975, Section 21-1-15. It states: There shall be at the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind a separate department of adult blind and deaf. Legislative appropriations for the department shall be made separate and apart from the legislative appropriations made for the support and operation of this institute. The department shall have the authority to establish and to operate a library service for blind, visually handicapped, deaf, or severely handicapped persons, and the department is hereby designated as the official agency to operate a regional library for the blind, visually handicapped, deaf, and severely handicapped. [In 1976 then Governor Wallace transferred authority for the library to the State Library.] The fundamental rule in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent as expressed in the statute. This intent may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purpose sought to be obtained. Shelton v. Wright, 439 So.2d 55 (Ala.1983). Section 21-1-15 states that the department of adult blind and deaf is to be a separate department in the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. According to the statute, legislative appropriations for the department are to be made separate and apart from legislative appropriations made for the support and operation of the institute. These appropriations are to be used solely for the operation of the Adult Deaf and Blind Department. The department is authorized to establish and to operate a library service for blind, visually handicapped, deaf, and severely handicapped persons and is designated as the official agency to operate a regional library for such persons. Therefore, the language used in Section 21-1-15 and the purpose in enacting the statute indicate that it was the intent of the legislature that the department of adult blind and deaf was to be separate from the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. Furthermore, my research does not reveal any authority that would permit the department to be combined with the Institute for the Deaf and Blind. Conclusion: The department of adult blind and deaf cannot be combined with the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. I hope this sufficiently answers your question. If our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Don Siegelman Attorney General ____________________ That is what the Attorney General said, but almost a year later it is still not clear what impact the opinion will have on business as usual at the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. The Board is the body that will have to change the institution's course, and forcing that action may require a lawsuit, which several people with whom we talked seem prepared to undertake if necessary. In the meantime one might be pardoned for hoping that, even if the blind adults in Alabama are suffering because of shared services and mingled funding, blind children, at least, might be benefiting from the skewed system. Alas, this does not seem to be the case. A document circulated to the Board of Trustees at their August, 1989, meeting indicates that during the past ten years $16,272,000 has been spent for renovation of existing structures, construction of new buildings, and maintenance of the buildings and grounds. Of this amount $9,569,000 was spent on the School for the Deaf and $2,411,000 on the School for the Blind. In fact, the physical plant of the School for the Deaf received about one and a half times the amount spent on the facilities of all other programs combined. The disproportion has become so lopsided that the Board of Trustees' deaf consumer representative recently recommended that more money be allocated to the School for the Blind, though there is no evidence yet that her plea will be heeded. Parenthetically one might inquire whether the academic programs of these schools are so sound that there really is sixteen million dollars available to lavish on physical plant and presidential luxuries, important as buildings and luxuries may be. Many in the blind community and several in the Alabama Legislature believe that the answer should have been no. But Dr. Hawkins clearly recognized the advantage of heading a facility that looked attractive, whether or not the students were flourishing or, for that matter, safe. For example, the two vans used by the School for the Blind both have driven, according to the School's principal, more than 200,000 miles. One is a 1975 model; the other was built in 1977. The Institute's director of transportation has said that one of the two is not road-worthy for any extended driving, but as far as is generally known, there are no imminent plans to replace either vehicle. We are informed that according to a recent furniture bid, the cost of furnishing and equipping the new student center at the School for the Deaf was $198,000 (with $105,000 being spent on furniture alone). On the other hand, the amount spent on furniture in the entire School for the Blind during the decade was $220,000. The new deaf student center contains a conference table, costing a princely $5,500, and 448 stacking chairs, each of which cost $46. During a recent alumni event at the School for the Blind, attendees report that the folding chairs they were using kept collapsing under them. The only other startling expenditures on the furniture bid are a $2,000 desk and several $238 trash baskets. It is puzzling to know how one could manage to spend $238 on a single indoor trash receptacle, but it must be gratifying for the deaf students to know that even their trash is departing in high style. If the school-age blind population being served in Alabama had been shrinking more rapidly than the deaf population during the past decade, marked differences in the funds expended on the schools might be understandable. But ten years ago 480 deaf students were enrolled at that school, and today there are 240 a decrease of 50 percent. In 1979 140 students attended the School for the Blind; today there are 130 a decrease of less than 10 percent. The Helen Keller School served 135 children in 1979 and enrolls 90 today, 60 of whom are visually impaired. The Parent-Infant Preschool Program works with about 125 blind children and roughly the same number of deaf children. The E. H. Gentry facility has historically served a population, sixty percent of whom are visually impaired, and about two-thirds of the adults working at Alabama Industries for the Blind are blind and about one-third sighted or otherwise handicapped. It is clear from these figures, reported by an Institute official as having been drawn from the Alabama Institute's own annual report, that today a majority of the people served by the institution are blind. Some observers have worried about what they see as the Institute's increasing tendency under the Hawkins administration to segregate its students from the greater Talladega community. Hawkins' AIDB Foundation one of those convenient nonprofit reservoirs of money that officials can channel in directions not approved by the legislature built a chapel that, according to members of the alumni, the students didn't need. These members of the alumni believe that it was preferable for youngsters to attend churches in the town rather than having separate services in a private facility. But the chapel was built to serve the students whether they liked or needed it or not, and as a result, the inmates of the Institute were separated still further from the town. During the early eighties, apparently as a cost-cutting measure, the Hawkins administration decided to reduce the Institute's security staff. At the same time observers close to the institution report that it was engaging in the kind of sloppy hiring practices that led to such catastrophic results at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind. (See the March, 1989, Braille Monitor .) We are told that a man was hired to offer both deaf and blind youngsters at AIDB firsthand experience in artistic expression, without an interview or research into his background. The new employee brought a friend (Daniel Spence) to Talladega with him who had jumped bail in San Francisco and escaped from prison in Nevada, where he had been serving a sentence for stabbing a man to death in a homosexual brawl. This second man, too, began establishing contact with blind and deaf students as a volunteer aide. He described himself around town as working at the Institute, according to sources close to the situation. But again, so far as we can determine, no effort was made to learn anything about the man. Probably on February 21, 1986 (not all the bodies were discovered for some time), Danny Lee Siebert (also known as Daniel Spence) entered an apartment building housing disabled people and killed two deaf women and the two small sons of one of them. Sometime later in the rampage he also killed his next door neighbor and abandoned her body in a wooded area. Perhaps a routine background check, a face-to- face interview, or the presence of security officers on campus would have done nothing to prevent what happened, but one wonders. NAC, of course, showed no public concern. Whether they were privately concerned, we have no way of knowing. Only one of the deaf women was actually a current Institute student (the other was an alumna), so neither was enrolled in the School for the Blind. The fact that blind Institute students could just as easily have been the ones killed was immaterial. Cavalier hiring practices and cost- cutting in security measures presumably have nothing to do with standards and quality of services in the NAC lexicon. In May of 1989 Dennis Hartenstine, Executive Director of NAC, boasted to blind consumers in Michigan: I assure you, if anything ever occurred and our commission [NAC's Commission on Accreditation] was concerned about the safety of the organization, the safety of the individuals being served and the accredited body did not take action to make changes, the Commission would withdraw accreditation. Viewed in the uncompromising light of Florida and Alabama, NAC's promises, like its standards of excellence, can be seen for what they are a sham and a mockery. Apparently everyone in Talladega worked together to hush things up. Only a few people, labeled by the Institute as blind trouble-makers, asked difficult questions, and no one in the administration of the Institute or the accrediting body that was supposed to lend it respectability was visibly interested in seeking hard answers. Hawkins did summarily fire the art instructor, but the instructor was, of course, no longer in touch with the murderer, who had fled the scene of the crime in a car belonging to one of his victims. The murderer was caught eleven months later and is now appealing his sentence to die in the electric chair. In summary it seems clear that during the years of the Hawkins administration students and clients in general, and the blind in particular, have gotten short shrift at the Alabama Institute. Two things happened in the spring of 1989, however, that suggested a change might be in the wind. In May, Calvin Wooten (one of the two blind Trustees) was elected Chairman of the Board the first blind person to be so honored. But according to the blind, he has remained deaf to their concerns. Staff members at the School for the Blind report that he does not visit the school or talk with them about their problems. He does, however, attend some School for the Deaf football games. As the situation worsened throughout 1989, the blind of Alabama collected about 250 names on a petition asking the state's governor to remove Mr. Wooten from the Board. The signers included virtually everyone who could be considered a leader in the blind community in Alabama. Unanimity among the blind has rarely before existed on any issue in the state, but the governor refused seriously to consider either their request or the underlying crisis that the very existence of two hundred-fifty names on such a petition demonstrated. It goes without saying that NAC did not disaccredit the institution or show any visible concern. Wooten can hardly be blamed for all the difficulties facing the blind at the Institute. After all, he has only chaired the Board since May of 1989. Hawkins is clearly much more responsible for the damage to the programs for the blind. Just about everyone in the blind community was, therefore, delighted to learn that on July 2, 1989, Dr. Hawkins was to resign in order to take the post of Chancellor at Alabama's Troy State University on September 1. In a state with a well-entrenched old-boy network and with an official as tightly tied into that network as Hawkins appears to be, there was no hope of making him accountable for what he had done to damage the Institute or the blind, but at least he would be leaving. Perhaps someone else could be encouraged to assist the blind. So Hawkins was wined and dined. The Alumni Association of the School for the Deaf presented him with a $1,500 set of golf clubs. The AIDB Foundation (the one he had established) bought up the remainder of his country club membership; the new chapel that no one wanted was named after him; and in general he was told what a fine fellow he was and what a wonderful job he had done. The blind, for the most part, remained silent. Then bits of information began to surface. Alabama has an ethics law with a provision that prevents the president of an institution from influencing the hiring of his wife. It appears, however, to an objective outsider that Hawkins wanted his wife to do some consulting work for the Institute in the Parent-Infant Program. According to some sources, she had been doing the work for years, and it only seemed fair for her to be paid for it. Others maintain that she didn't even begin to earn the salary she was eventually paid. Hawkins apparently dreamed up a scheme which would enable him to funnel some $24,000 of Institute money to his wife through the University of Alabama at Birmingham, an institution with which Mrs. Hawkins had previously been associated. When the story eventually blew open, it was covered by the Daily Home , the local Talladega paper. This is the way the Daily Home reported the story in late September, 1989: ____________________ Preuitt [State Senator]: Hawkins Abused Power as AIDB President by Denise Sinclair Controversy continues to surround former Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind President Dr. Jack Hawkins, Jr. This time state Senator Jim Preuitt is questioning whether a contract allowing Hawkins' wife Janice to work as a consultant through the University of Alabama at Birmingham is ethical. Preuitt said Tuesday, He (Hawkins) primarily contracted with the University of Alabama for $24,350 for a part-time job for Mrs. Hawkins. The money was funneled from AIDB to UAB. It may not be illegal, but it sure sounds unethical. Preuitt said there is no indication the Board approved the contract, which ran from June, 1988, to May, 1989. The contract was a cooperative agreement between AIDB and UAB for the exchange of professional and expert services. It involved the AIDB Parent-Infant Program, which provides quality services to the hearing and visually impaired pre-school child. According to the contract terms, Mrs. Hawkins developed, promoted, and evaluated the program. Under the contract, Mrs. Hawkins received $22,000 for consultant services, $1,350 for travel and $1,000 for materials and supplies. AIDB reimbursed the University of Alabama for the services at a rate of $2,030 per month under the contract. Also, according to the contract, the services were for a two-thirds position. Hawkins signed the contract for AIDB. Signatures of Mr. Dudley Pewitt, senior vice president for administration at UAB, and Dr. Keith D. Blayney, dean of the School of Health Related Professions, were also on the contract, which was dated May 17, 1988. Preuitt pointed out that the contract doesn't say Mrs. Hawkins would be the recipient. I do know she paid into the Alabama Retirement System for a salary of $22,000 during that period. I think it was cut and dried. It's a cowardly way to put your wife on the local payroll. I questioned Hawkins about this in January in Montgomery as to whether or not his wife was on the payroll. He said I was getting too personal. The senator said he had the AIDB minutes researched and there is no authorization by the Board for this contract. This is another thing where the public will have less confidence in schools. These misuses of funds are reasons the public will not vote on new taxes. Institutions must be accountable. Preuitt added, The local legislators have been trying for five years to get redirection of funding at AIDB to children and adults rather than beautification. We did not want to do what we did in Montgomery. But that was the only way we could get Jack Hawkins' attention. We wanted questions answered. Many people thought we were too tough on him at that time. We've just scratched the surface. There is so much abuse by this (Hawkins) administration. It got to the point where he thought he was above the law. Rep. Clarence Haynes said he questions the legality of the contract or agreement. I understand the contract was typed at AIDB. This is just another example of mismanagement of funds. We have been trying to correct this for a couple of years. It's one of many incidents that are not right. We've (the local legislative delegation) been outgunned and outwritten in the newspapers. AIDB Board member Ralph Gaines said he had no knowledge of the agreement between the Institute and the University of Alabama. I've been on the Board 2-1/2 years. I don't recall any discussion or Board action on this contract between UAB and AIDB, particularly Mrs. Hawkins. Jim Bosarge, assistant director of University Relations at UAB, said, The consulting agreement was new in 1988. Mrs. Hawkins had maintained a part-time position with UAB since moving to Talladega. She is a long-term employee of UAB since the mid-1970s. The AIDB Field Services Office requested a person for consultation purposes prior to the agreement. She had been serving AIDB needs on a voluntary basis for several years. They requested more of her time, which led to the consulting agreement. Bosarge said the University had information from the Ethics Commission regarding Mrs. Hawkins' employment. It's my understanding it was OK for her to consult with AIDB in one of her specialties if it occurred through another institution. She was a part-time employee of UAB. There was no reason for her not being hired as a consultant. No one else in the area had the skills to do the work. AIDB Board Chairman Calvin Wooten of Anniston declined comment on the agreement. The Daily Home was unable Tuesday afternoon to obtain information from the Ethics Commission in Montgomery regarding the matter. Preuitt and Haynes both stressed they feel strongly about public institutions' being more accountable for citizens' tax dollars and the recent abuses at AIDB point to this fact. ____________________ That's what the newspapers were saying, but that was far from all. Alabama also has a law that prevents anyone from buying state property except at auction. The salary and perquisites a tax-free expense account and a mansion with maid, gardener, and utilities bestowed upon Dr. Hawkins by the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind out of funds provided by the state's taxpayers can go a long way in a small southern town, where the cost of living is lower than in most cities; and plenty of people, like the Hawkinses' maid, scrape along on less than $11,000 a year. If the state had provided Dr. Hawkins nothing more, this job would still, by any standard, have been generously (perhaps too generously) remunerative. But apparently Alabama (whether it knew it or not) was prepared to provide the Hawkinses with the use of a kingly array of luxuries in their residence. One state official told the Braille Monitor with disgust that Mrs. Hawkins loved wallpaper more than any woman he had ever seen. Seemed like there was new wallpaper and carpet about every six months. When the time came to move from Talladega, the Hawkinses apparently couldn't bear to leave behind some of the lovely things the state had purchased. According to Dr. Hawkins, on August 17, 1989, he wrote a check in the amount of $2,781.65 to cover the cost of the items he wished to purchase no doubt appropriately discounted because they were used merchandise. It is clear that Dr. Hawkins knew about the state prohibition on outright purchasing of Alabama property because he had someone from the Institute call the state's Ethics Commission to inquire how a person could legally buy a desk from the state. Probably assuming that the desk in question was an old and beloved memento of years of service, the state official said that if a check were written for the market value of the piece, it would pass muster, or at least no one would probably bother to ask questions. This is the way the Daily Home told the story on September 28, 1989. As you read, ask yourself what happened to the desk in question. Was the initial question asked about a desk simply because it would sound more innocuous that way? Was the desk in question never returned? How many other objects slipped through the cracks? Here is one of the many news stories printed at the time: ____________________ Ethics Complaint Filed Against Dr. Hawkins by Denise Sinclair An ethics complaint was filed Tuesday against former Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind President Dr. Jack Hawkins, Jr. for purchasing furniture and china from the president's mansion. Tom Mills of Tuscaloosa, a 1981 graduate of AIDB's E. H. Gentry Technical Facility, filed the complaint with the state's Ethics Commission. In his complaint to the Commission, Mills said Hawkins improperly used his position to buy the furniture that belonged to the Institute. Wayne Hall, assistant chief examiner with the state Examiner of Public Accounts Office, said Wednesday afternoon that state law prohibits such a sale. State property must be declared surplus property and sold according to the rules and regulations of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Hall said in a telephone interview from Montgomery. Hawkins resigned from AIDB in the summer to become chancellor of the Troy State University System on September 1. Before leaving AIDB, Hawkins bought the furniture and china for $2,890. The items had been in the president's home on South Street. The items were a nest of tables, curio cabinet, a set of Lennox China (six place settings), two place settings of Lennox China, a set of queen size bedding, one bed frame, an entertainment center, a butcher block, and one desk. These items were returned to the mansion Wednesday afternoon, according to an AIDB official, and Hawkins will receive a refund for the items he purchased. AIDB officials have said they were advised in mid-August by an official of the state examiner of public accounts that the sale would be legal provided Hawkins paid fair market value. Hall said his office records show the initial contact was made by an AIDB official on Monday. We received a call on Monday from someone at the school concerning the sale of a desk and the proper procedures. The other items were not mentioned, he said. Ethics Commission Director Melvin Cooper would not comment on the complaint, saying state law prohibits him from doing so. Mills said, I'm not accusing Dr. Hawkins of anything. I'm concerned about the public picture statewide regarding presidents of universities and institutions such as this who spend money on lavish lifestyles instead of education. The voters in this state have a right to put their feet down when it comes to boards of trustees around Alabama who buy things like the entertainment center and china. Bibb County next door to me can't afford textbooks. The public should be incensed by this. Mills said that until this lavish spending is stopped by presidents of institutions, the public will keep saying no to any additional tax moneys or funds for education. Until these big educational people quit living lavish lifestyles, education in Alabama will suffer, he concluded. State Representative Clarence Haynes and Senator Jim Preuitt are calling for an investigation concerning other items that were removed from the president's home before Hawkins left office. The items were returned Sunday. Hawkins said the items were inadvertently packed by movers. Bibb Thompson with Thompson Company, which moved some of the Hawkins' furniture, said, My company employees only inventory and load what they are told to load by the person or family we are moving. ____________________ So said the Daily Home , and a careful reading of this article reveals that the entertainment center, nest of tables, Lennox china, etc., is not all that left Talladega with the Hawkinses. In fact, some who lose no love for Dr. Hawkins suggest that the financial transaction on August 17 provided convenient camouflage for the disappearance of a much longer list of items a list as astonishing for its variety as for its value. But this is only speculation. The facts are clear enough. The Hawkinses have explained and explained that they were both running in and out of the house all day while the movers were there to pack up their possessions. They maintain that they had no idea what was being packed because the movers insisted on wrapping the things they were to move. But the maid reports that Mrs. Hawkins told her to instruct a workman to take down a chandelier for packing, so one suspects that a good deal of planning went into the preparations for moving despite the protestations of the Hawkinses that they never intended to take state property with them. When the absence of the valuables was noticed, the Hawkinses agreed to return them. Hawkins arranged to bring back the items on a Sunday so that he and members of the Board of Trustees could go over the inventory list and check off the returned goods. Hawkins just happened to arrive in Talladega Sunday morning instead of Sunday afternoon as agreed. He says he decided to stack the things in the president's mansion just to get them deposited before going to a luncheon engagement. He says he didn't know that the door locks had been changed, which meant that his key (it isn't clear why he still had a key to the mansion at all) didn't fit in the front door. He reports that he then found a side door unlocked, through which he carried the things he was returning. There is now no record of how closely the list of items Hawkins returned resembles the list of those reported as missing one of the objectives that the Institute should have had in mind when it arranged to have its Trustees present when the goods were returned. A neighbor, however, had noticed someone carrying goods between a van and the house and apparently concluded that the mansion was being burgled. She called Representative Clarence Haynes, who in turn called the police. [It is worth considering why a citizen, seeing such unusual behavior, would not call the police directly. Could it have been fear of tangling personally with the powerful Alabama Institute? If the observer recognized the ex-president, one can hardly blame her for wishing to avoid being pulled into a legal matter.] In any case, the police dashed to the scene to find the esteemed ex-president of the Institute surreptitiously slipping state property back into the house. Perhaps it really was all an unfortunate mistake perhaps. But credulity has its limits somewhere. Here is an excerpt from the Daily Home's account of the story on September 27, 1989: ____________________ Legislators Call for Investigation of AIDB Matter by Denise Sinclair TALLADEGA State Representative Clarence Haynes and Senator Jim Preuitt are calling for a full investigation into an incident in which items, pieces of furniture and silver, were taken from the president's mansion at the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. Former AIDB President Dr. Jack Hawkins, Jr. and several others returned Sunday the items, which were discovered missing following an inventory of the mansion. Hawkins assumed the chancellorship at Troy State University on September 1. Haynes got a phone call Sunday morning from someone who saw a van parked at the mansion, and thought the residence was being burglarized. Haynes reported it to the Talladega Police Department, who on checking found Hawkins there returning the missing items. Haynes picks up the story from there. I had zero knowledge of any of this happening before Sunday morning. I received a call that someone had broken into the president's home at AIDB. I don't know who called. I assumed it was someone in the neighborhood who spotted the van. I called the police. The police later called me. I met them there at the home. I was told the Hawkins family had brought some things back from Troy State in a Troy State University van. I understand two weeks ago some AIDB officials had reported a list of items missing from the home after Dr. Hawkins left. Through business services and controller's office inventory and with the aid of purchase orders, a list of items was put together that were taken from the home. Hawkins was called and ordered to bring the items back. Had it not been for AIDB Board member Ralph Gaines, these items probably would not have been returned. It was reported by other news agencies in the state and in the Daily Home Tuesday afternoon the incident was a misunderstanding according to Gaines and Board Chairman Calvin Wooten. In a statement to the Daily Home Tuesday afternoon, Gaines said, The Daily Home has reported I have said there was a `misunderstanding' regarding recent events involving the President's home at AIDB and some of its contents. I have not communicated with anyone at the Daily Home until I saw this report in the paper. The only misunderstanding I know of was the time and manner certain items which had been removed were to be returned to the home. Gaines went on to say that Hawkins had done a good job at AIDB and as a Board member he hopes no adverse effects on the Institute, its children, and adults would occur because of this issue. I hope we can continue with the good work that's going on, and I am sorry these things have occurred. After learning of the incident and not knowing the full story, Haynes asked Board Chairman Calvin Wooten, What's going on? Wooten, Haynes noted, said the items had been inadvertently taken by movers. Wooten in a telephone conversation Tuesday afternoon called the incident a comedy of errors. He said, Everything has been brought back to the mansion. I knew myself he was coming Sunday. I didn't go into any details with him on returning the items and volunteered to help him if he needed assistance. He said he had it under control. It didn't cross my mind the former president would be accused of breaking into his former home. I contend it was no break-in. All the items are inventoried and everything is back in place. The representative questions why Hawkins returned to Talladega Sunday morning instead of the appointed time of 3:30 p.m. the same day. He had an appointment with the Board at 3:30 Sunday to return the items. I have not talked to him. I do know he and the others went in the house early and put the items back unknown to the current resident, Dr. Erskine Murray. I did not know at the time when I called the police it was Dr. Hawkins. But I want to point out he had no business in that house. Haynes said that in talking with Wooten, he feels the Board chairman wants to cover up the matter. This is the kind of thing that has been going on for years, and this proves what some of us have been trying to point out about the Hawkinses' blatant disregard of the taxpayers' money. I will ask for further investigation by the Board into this, and also I want the Board to check out the possibility of items bought without purchase orders that are not on the inventory list. Haynes commended board member Gaines for his effort to do the right thing. He added, I only wish the chairman (Wooten) could see things the way Gaines does. He concluded, Wooten has tried to shield some of this from the public. It is not right, no matter who it is, to take property that doesn't belong to you. I think people deserve to see the truth good, bad, or indifferent. Preuitt echoed Haynes' sentiments and said he will call for a full investigation. From all indications the items were taken from the mansion and moved to Troy. The big question is do these items belong to the school, the state, or the taxpayers, and why would they be moved? The merchandise was asked to be returned. Hawkins had moved out almost 30 days ago, and he returned with the items Sunday. Why move the items out if they didn't belong to you and then slip them back in? Dr. Murray is living there, and he was not home when this took place. It's wrong. Why take the goods to begin with when they belong to the taxpayers? This warrants a full investigation, Preuitt said. He, too, thinks a coverup is occurring. They say the movers got the items by mistake. That will not hold water. Most of the merchandise belonged to the Institute and the taxpayers. The movers were directed to move the items. This is not a mistake on the part of the movers, and it deserves being investigated because it is taxpayers' money. A list of the items returned to the president's home are: one tea set, one ginger jar with base, one dresser, one lamp globe, two entrance rugs, two small round tables (one with marble top), one brown narrow table, two mirror runners, one octagon mirror, four crystal candle holders, one tea pot with two cups, one large Revere bowl, one soup tureen, two glass decanters, one crystal compote; One china plate, four figurines, one cup and saucer, three silver wine goblets, 12 small Revere bowls, one large brass planter, one capa de onte planter, Buttercup silver (22 cocktail forks, eight knives, eight forks, six butter spreaders, eight salad forks, seven tablespoons, one sugar spoon, eight teaspoons, and eight soup spoons), 17 silver napkin rings, one lace table cloth; One casserole dish in silver holder, one silver wire basket, two oblong silver platters, 18 silver coasters with three holders, three silver trays, one set of blue stoneware, one set flatware, two brass lamps, one side table, one soup tureen, three decorative apples, 41 glass serving plates, one waste basket, one gate leg table, one chandelier, one two-drawer file cabinet, one chaise lounge, one padded headboard with bed accessories, one brass floor lamp, one oak desk, one bookcase, one bedside table, one quilt stand, and one VCR. ____________________ There it is as it was reported all over the state at the time. And what about the investigation being conducted by the state's Ethics Commission? From the beginning there was next to no chance that the Commission would find against Jack Hawkins. The Old Boy network in Alabama is alive and well, and the blind are not a part of it. As we go to press in December, the Ethics Commission has found in Hawkins' favor. As one person close to the case, who asked not to be identified said, He may have broken the law, but not the ethics law, so he is exonerated. This leaves only the police investigation of the Hawkins purchase of state-owned goods and his removal and return of still other state property. The District Attorney is not saying what he intends to do. The current grand jury is about to stand down, so he may wish to wait until a new one is impaneled. Maybe justice will yet be done, but the blind of Alabama are understandably skeptical. Why should it begin now? A new President of the Institute was named on November 9, 1989. He is Thomas Bannister, who was the Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. He was the only one of the five finalists who had any past experience at all with blindness, so (although as we have seen in the case of Hawkins, experience with blindness is not necessarily a proof of rectitude) perhaps the luck of blind people in Alabama has changed. One can only hope but may be pardoned for doubting. With a united voice the blind of Alabama have called for redress. The governor has ignored them, and Legislators James Preuitt and Clarence Haynes (whose blind mother is an active Federationist) have demanded reform of the Institute to no avail. And where was NAC when questions about the quality of services to blind people were being raised and condemnation of the Institute's President was filling virtually every newspaper in the state? In bed with the establishment, of course, where it always wants to be. In May of 1989 Dennis Hartenstein explained with sanctimonious condescension to a group of blind people that NAC's mission is to improve agencies in the field. If accreditation were to be withdrawn or refused, he asked rhetorically, what incentive would there be for that agency to improve its services to the blind? To which one is driven to reply: What impetus is there now? Alabama has never been a good place for blind people, but its attractiveness has been declining during the past decade. Jack Hawkins is clearly the immediate cause of this sorry state of affairs, but the ultimate responsibility must lie at NAC's door. Whether NAC likes it or not, the general public understands the concept of accreditation to be a way for experts to indicate their approval of an agency's actions and policies. NAC must decide whether it would rather claim that the morally bankrupt activities and policies of the Hawkins administration are outside the purview of its standards or that it has simply been looking the other way in an effort (one supposes) to improve the Institute. Both alternatives are damning, and both are probably, to one degree or another, true. We will say it once again in case we have been misunderstood. We have no quibble with the concept of accreditation. If it were done with commitment to improving the welfare of blind people, if it reflected society's commonly held notions of legality and ethics, if one could ever see a pattern that suggested blind people were flourishing and growing in competence through the work of accredited agencies, then one could embrace NAC accreditation with enthusiasm. The Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind, and its checkered history under the leadership of Jack Hawkins, is only the latest chapter in the NAC scandal. The corruption at the Alabama Institute demonstrates once again the true degree of NAC's commitment (or lack thereof) to quality service and high principles. When NAC and its agencies cozy up together and claim to be taking care of the blind, the blind lose every time. We will keep fighting for justice in Alabama, as we have so often done before. Through hard experience we have learned that if we who are blind do not fight for ourselves, no one else will do it for us.WHAT USE IS THE LONG WHITE CANE? by Sharon Duffy Sharon Duffy is Mobility Instructor at the Orientation Center of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. She is a good teacher and a perceptive author. The following excerpts are taken from Miss Duffy's The White Cane, copyright, 1987. Apparently they appeared a few months ago in the publication of the NFB of Florida. Although we did not catch them at that time, we picked them up in the October, 1989, Insight, the publication of the NFB of South Dakota. They make a lot of sense. Here they are: Cane travel is one of the most valuable skills a blind person can attain. It not only means independence for the individual but is more often the means of acceptance of blindness than any other skill. 1) A blind person who uses a cane is not only making a statement to others that he is blind but, more importantly, is acknowledging his own blindness. In dealing with the challenges that blindness brings, the first step must be this acceptance of blindness, and then the ability to look at each problem unemotionally and logically to work out its solution. 2) It is respectable to be blind. It is respectable to use a cane, and it is normal for blind persons to use canes. 3) Why is the denial of blindness so prevalent? Throughout time blindness has been portrayed as helplessness, and today it continues to get bad press via commercials, movies, and literature. Most blind people recognize that they do not fit the negative stereotypes presented. Therefore, many blind individuals' reaction is to deny that they are blind. Pride in ourselves as human beings and acceptance of what we are is the real solution. 4) We should take our white canes with us wherever we go. It is important in identifying ourselves as blind persons in terms of public awareness. Identifying oneself as blind can reduce the number of uncomfortable situations which would arise without it. The blind person who asks where something is, something in plain sight, spares himself and the sighted person embarrassment. Since the incidence of blindness is so low, a person probably would not immediately conceive that the individual asking the question is blind. 5) Many blind people mistakenly believe that they appear more normal if they don't carry a cane. The fact is that the public may not recognize that a person is blind but does realize that there is something different mental retardation, drunkenness, illiteracy, to name a few. Ultimately it is more comfortable for blind people to identify themselves as blind, allaying the confusion that results from the misidentification that would otherwise inevitably occur. 6) Self-confidence is the goal of cane travel. It can be achieved through promotion of the respectability of blindness, learning good technical skills, and challenging ourselves to do what we did not believe we could do. Do whatever it takes to attain this end. CONSUMERISM: IMPROVING THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM by Kenneth Jernigan The following address was delivered at the conference of the Penn-Del Chapter of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on November 17, 1989. There are those who say that nothing ever changes. I am not one of them. There are those who say that especially nothing ever changes in the blindness field. Again, I am not one of them. I believe that the past half century has brought unprecedented changes, not only in the world at large but also and particularly in the blindness field. Moreover, I think the changes have overwhelmingly been for the good. However, as is almost always the case, with progress has come problems both in the world at large and in the blindness field. Today we are talking about consumerism. The fact that we are, along with the popularity and recurrence of the theme, means that there is a felt need and that there are problems. In the summer of 1988 I participated in a panel discussion on this topic at the AER convention in Montreal. Some of the things which I said at that time bear repeating, for they deal with basic questions matters concerning relationships and performance in our field. At the National Federation of the Blind convention in Chicago in 1988, 2,443 people registered as attendees. No other group has that kind of attendance. You know it, and I know it. In October of 1989 the National Federation of the Blind distributed (on cassette, on flexible disc, in Braille, and in print) over 29,000 copies of its magazine the Braille Monitor . Again, no other publication in our field has that kind of circulation, or anything even approaching it. At my first NFB convention in 1952 barely 150 people were present, and we had no monthly publication. At that 1952 convention we spent more than fifty percent of our time talking about the rehabilitation system what it was doing, how to improve it, and what we wanted from it. At our 1988 convention we had twenty-five hours of program content, and we spent a total of forty-five minutes (or three percent of the time) dealing with the rehabilitation system of the United States. Of that forty-five minutes, fifteen minutes was spent hearing from the federal Rehabilitation Commissioner; fifteen minutes was spent hearing from our Director of Governmental Affairs, who talked about problems blind people were having with the system; and the final fifteen minutes was spent with questions and comments from the audience, indicating their concern with the failure of the system to deliver. In short, only one percent of the program time was used to hear from the rehabilitation system, and none of the time was spent talking about threats to the system or how to save it. Why? Is it simply, as some have charged, that the members of the Federation (all of the thousands and tens of thousands of them or, at least, their leaders) are negative and destructive irresponsible radicals and agency haters? No. Such a thesis cannot be sustained. The facts do not support it. Let us turn again to the statistics of the 1988 NFB convention. Kurt Cylke, head of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, was with us for the entire week, and so were several of his staff. Day after day they answered questions, talked with our members, and planned with us for the future. There was an atmosphere of partnership and mutual trust. Likewise, top officials of the Social Security Administration were present to speak and participate. The Deputy Commissioner for Policy and External Affairs had a forty-minute segment on the program, and other Social Security personnel conducted a seminar and answered questions for most of an afternoon. As with the Library, there was no tension or confrontation only partnership and a feeling of shared interest and mutual concern. Moreover, with Social Security it must be remembered that many blind people throughout the country experience problems with underpayments, demands for return of overpayments, denial of applications, and similar difficulties; and more often than not, the National Federation of the Blind represents those blind persons in hearings to reverse Social Security's actions. Millions of dollars and numerous professional judgments are repeatedly called into question. Yet, there is no hostility only friendliness and joint effort. On a continuing basis the National Federation of the Blind and the Social Security Administration share information, exchange ideas, and work together in a spirit of cooperative harmony. In short, our problems come only with the rehabilitation system, with some of the private agencies which function as part of that system, and with a group of educators. And even here there must be a further narrowing and focusing, for the problem is with the system itself and some of its more vocal spokespersons, not with all of its component parts or personnel. An increasing number of those in the system are beginning to take a new look and work with us. The very fact of our discussion here this morning is an evidence of that trend and the shift in thinking. This brings me to our topic, Consumerism. I think blind people must have not an exclusive but a major role in shaping the blindness system. Otherwise, the system will die. Moreover, when I say blind people, I do not mean just blind individuals. I mean democratic membership organizations of the blind. I mean effective participation by the blind, and the only way that can be achieved is through organizations of the blind. In a sense, of course, blind people have always shaped the system, as indeed they do today. In most cases blind persons started (or played a major part in starting) the agencies. There have always been blind agency directors, and individual blind persons prominent in the community have from the beginning served on advisory and policy boards and lent their names and prestige to funding and public support. Even so, the system has traditionally been custodial in nature and high-handed in dealing with meaningful input from the blind. This is why the system is in trouble. It is in danger of being absorbed into generic programs for the disabled, starving for lack of funds, and losing its position of centrality and perceived importance in the lives of the blind. This would not be the case if the average, thinking, responsible blind adult in this country felt that the system really mattered excluding, of course, the blind people who work in the system. Let me be clearly understood. I am not saying that rehabilitation, training in mobility, assistance for the newly blinded, or education are not important urgently important; for they are. Rather, I am saying that year by year more and more blind persons have come to feel that the system is not effectively providing those things and that it is both unresponsive and irrelevant. Remember that I am talking about the system as a whole, not individual agencies or particular people working in those agencies. It is not, as a few have claimed, that the organized blind wish to take control of the agencies. It is, from the point of view of the system, far worse than that. It is that more and more blind people are coming to feel that, in the things that count in their daily lives, what the agencies have to offer won't help and doesn't matter. If I felt that the system was hopeless and that nothing could or should be done to improve it, I would not be here today talking with you. It is late, but if honest evaluation and forthright action occur, I think the system can be saved and that it is worth saving. However, certain things must be said without equivocation. As a beginning, the agencies must change their attitudes about criticism and about the role of the organized blind in decision making. The matter of Fred Schroeder is a case in point. As most members of this organization know, Mr. Schroeder is blind. He is currently Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. Before taking that job, he taught mobility professionally, received all of the academic credentials for doing so, and then was denied certification by this organization (the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired). The denial was based on the belief that a blind person cannot safely and competently teach another blind person how to travel or, if you like, teach another blind person mobility. The National Federation of the Blind as an organization and I as an individual thought you were wrong in that decision, and we were entitled to that opinion. On the other hand, it was perfectly proper for your organization to believe that you were right to attack our position, but it was not proper for the members of your organization to attack us (as some of you did) on irrelevant grounds denigrating our character and morals because of our beliefs. Of course, the same would obtain for our treatment of you. Moreover, workers in the blindness system must resist the growing tendency to hide behind the term professionalism and must stop treating professionalism as if it were a sacred mystery. There is a teachable body of knowledge which can be learned about giving service to the blind; but much of that knowledge is a matter of common sense, good judgment, and experience. Most thinking blind persons (certainly those who have been blind for any length of time and have had any degree of success) know at least as much about what they and other blind people want and need from the system as the professionals do, and it must also be kept in mind that not every act of a professional is necessarily a professional act or based on professionalism. Just as in other fields in America today, the professionals in the blindness system must be judged on their behavior and not merely their credentials. Consider, for instance, the question of whether children with residual vision should be taught Braille. After careful consideration the members of the National Federation of the Blind believe that every such child should at least have the option of being taught to read and write Braille. Some of the educators (especially those who cannot fluently read and write Braille) resist this view. Is their opinion a professional judgment, or is it a decision based on vested interest? Whichever it is, the views of the organized blind are entitled to serious consideration and not simply a brush-off, with the statement that the blind don't know what they are talking about and that they probably have bad motives and morals into the bargain. This brings me back to what I said about Kurt Cylke and the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. The libraries are not in trouble, and (regardless of economic conditions or changing theories) the libraries won't be in trouble. They won't because the blind of this country won't let it happen. And, yes, we have the power to give substance to our feelings. We don't control Kurt Cylke or the libraries. We don't want to and besides, he wouldn't permit it. Neither does he control us and for the same reasons. We support the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped because we need it, because it gives useful and good service, and because its leaders understand that they exist to give us service, and that they have accountability to us. What I have said about the Library is also true of the Social Security Administration and an increasing number of agencies and individuals in the fields of rehabilitation and education. But the hard core of the blindness system still resists, to its detriment and ours. It tries to say that it speaks for the blind because the head of an agency is blind or because blind people serve on a staff or board. No great intellect is required to understand that in a representative democracy only those elected by a group can speak for that group; that the heads of agencies can have vested interests which transcend their blindness; and that when an agency can pick and choose individual blind spokespersons from the community, it can get people who will say whatever it wants them to say. Unless things change, I believe the central core of the blindness system will sink into obscurity and wither away, but I believe this need not happen and should not happen. Blind people (and that means the organized blind) must have a major voice in shaping the blindness system and the programs which operate within it whether those programs be sheltered shops, residential schools, state agencies, or private nonprofit organizations. It must be a partnership and not a partnership of dominance and subservience but of consenting equals a partnership based on trust, respect, and mutuality. Let these things happen, and all else will follow. Let these things happen, and the system will thrive. If those who work in the public and private agencies want broad support from the blind community, they must be responsive to the concerns which the blind perceive as important. Today there are relatively few major issues which divide the organized blind and the agencies. Twenty years ago it appeared (at least, on the surface) that there was at least one such issue the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). But the problem was more apparent than real. NAC (despite its few remaining vocal supporters) has never been a significant factor in the lives of the nation's blind and is now rapidly becoming a dead letter and a subject only for the historians. It has never been able to get more than twenty or twenty-five percent of the nation's eligible agencies to accept its accreditation, and increasingly as the larger and more prominent agencies have pulled away from it, it has been forced to try to keep its numbers up by accrediting smaller and less well-known organizations. Let the dead be dead, and let the rest of us move on to better things. The real question we face is not how to resolve controversies between consumers and the agencies but whether consumers can continue to feel that the agencies on balance are relevant enough and important enough for the consumers to nurture and save them in short, whether there can be common cause, shared purpose, mutual respect, and true partnership. Certainly the problems which face us are formidable and challenging. We still have a long way to go in improving the climate of public opinion so that the blind can have opportunity and full access to the main channels of everyday life. We have made tremendous progress in this area, but much yet remains to be done. All other things being equal, the job can best be handled through joint effort by the blind and the agencies, but handled it must be whether the agencies participate or not. Likewise, there is a broad spectrum of specific programs and activities, ranging from technology to education to employment, which need urgent and sustained attention and again (all other things being equal) the job can best be handled by joint effort on the part of the blind community and the agencies. But one way or another, the blind intend to achieve full equality and first-class status in society. The question is what part the agencies will play and what relationship they will have with the increasingly powerful consumer movement. The story is told that one evening a nightclub patron approached the bandstand and said to the drummer, Does your dog bite? No, the drummer said, he doesn't. The man reached down to pet the dog, and it almost bit his arm off. He leaped back in a fury and said to the drummer, I thought you said your dog didn't bite. He doesn't, the drummer said, but that isn't my dog. You see, the man asked the wrong question, so he got an unsatisfactory answer. Let us be sure that in dealing with consumerism in the blindness field we not only try to get the right answers but also ask the right questions. Otherwise, we may lose an arm. COMMENTS ON THE AUDIT OF THE IDAHO COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND by Ramona Walhof From the Editor: The following article appeared in the Winter, 1989, issue of the Gem State Milestones , the publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho. Whether or not our opponents would agree, this article is most significant for its gentleness. It discusses audits of the Idaho Commission for the Blind for a period beginning July 1, 1986, and ending June 30, 1989. The Administrator of the agency for those three years was Howard Barton. Supervisor of the Business Enterprise Program was J. Scott Fenwick. Chief of Rehabilitation Services was Ed Easterling. These names are not mentioned in the Walhof article, but Monitor readers will remember that the administration of the Idaho Commission for the Blind was not supportive of the blind of the state or responsive to them. The audit shows serious financial problems for which Barton, Fenwick, and Easterling were responsible. The new Administrator of the Commission for the Blind in Idaho was hired July 31, 1989. He is Ed McHugh, formerly of Massachusetts. McHugh is reputed to work well with all blind persons and organizations. Federationists in Idaho were content with the selection of McHugh and report that improvements appear to be taking shape although more slowly than might be hoped. As the Walhof article makes clear, members of the National Federation of the Blind want nothing more than a good working rapport with agencies serving the blind. In states where this occurs (and it does with increasing frequency) blind clients, employed blind persons, and agency staff members receive more respect and better benefits from the public at large and the government than in states where the rapport between the blind and the agency is poor. No more valuable support for a good agency for the blind can be found than support from the National Federation of the Blind. Even when an agency is mediocre, the NFB tends to be tolerant; but when an agency is downright bad, we have no choice. We must fight. That is the only way to get improvements. When changes are made, we do what we can to help. If change is for the better, we say so. If change is for the worse, we go back to the fight. In Idaho change seems to be for the better. It remains to be seen whether the change will mean programs are a little better or a lot better. Here is the article which appeared in the Gem State Milestones : One of the functions of the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho is to monitor government-funded programs for the blind. When an audit is released which is critical such as the one for the Idaho Commission for the Blind that was completed in October of 1989 our office gets calls and questions: What does it mean? What should we do about it? In this audit, six findings and recommendations were made for fiscal years 1987 and 1988. These dealt with relatively minor problems, which can be corrected. The audit for fiscal year 1989 included the same six findings and recommendations plus one additional item. This seventh matter is serious. Probably a total of at least $140,000 was misspent, incorrectly accounted for and/or improperly committed. The situation so identified has to do with the management of one cafeteria for about one year, and only one blind person could have benefited from the expenditure of all that money and it is doubtful that he did. The blind have been concerned about this situation since it started. The money has already been spent, but this does not end the matter. Serious mistakes were made. Three top people at the Idaho Commission for the Blind were responsible. The administrator was replaced last summer, and the two supervisors in question were replaced before that. Since the audit did not do it, it seems important to let those who care about the Commission program know that these replacements have occurred. It does not seem necessary to name the names of the three who did the damage. The names are easy to obtain and besides, knowledgeable people in the state know who they are. The new administrator, Ed McHugh; the two new supervisors; and the Commission board are quietly going about the business of trying to improve the programs and correct the mistakes of the past. If the blind of the state thought serious mistakes were being made by these three former officials, and if the auditors found what they found then it is not surprising that there have been questions raised about the administration of the Idaho Commission for the Blind during recent years. On the other hand, the new people must be given the opportunity (including a reasonable amount of time) to make the improvements that are needed. Most, if not all, of the staff who remain are conscientious. We do not expect magic. We do expect change and we are beginning to see it. Many examples could be given, but here is one which will require at least a certain amount of time. The former administration threw away the Job Development position at the Commission. This was done in spite of the fact that there is a seventy percent unemployment rate among the blind of our state and that the loss of the position was not necessary. No more important position can exist than one for the purpose of job development and placement for the blind. Yet, it was eliminated. The new administration must get the governor and legislature to fund a brand new position for this purpose always a harder job than maintaining an existing position. The request has been made and is supported by the governor. It goes without saying that the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho supports it. Even if it passes the legislature (and we are doing everything we can to see that it does), the job development position cannot be filled before July 1, 1990 and even after that, it will take some time for all of it to translate into new jobs for blind people. There is probably no way to speed up the process. We have no reason to question any of the information in the audit, but we hope and believe that the most serious problems are being corrected and that progressive changes are in motion. Since it is part of our function to monitor agencies for the blind, the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho will not hesitate to report the fact if improvements are not made within a reasonable time.ALABAMA REVISITED IN THE IOWA PEPPER MILL by Kenneth Jernigan In the January, 1990, Braille Monitor we carried an article about the goings on at the Iowa Department for the Blind (formerly the Iowa Commission for the Blind). Now, there is more much more. It will be remembered that Terry Pepper, the person responsible for accounting at the Iowa Department for the Blind, was accused of stealing funds from the agency, that he pleaded innocent and resigned, and that there was every indication that he would be prosecuted. Under date of January 13, 1990, the Des Moines Register carried an article giving further unbelievable details. The headline Ex-State Official Admits Stealing Taxpayer Money summed up the new developments, but it did not do justice to what was to come. In general the article detailed a lurid account of the misuse of state funds for the purchase of everything from Pepper's underwear to a $101 gravy dish. The state auditor was quoted as saying that in June of 1988 a state check in the amount of $20,342 was sent to a local department store to make a partial payment on Pepper's personal charge accounts. The list of items rivals the one which appears in the article (printed elsewhere in this issue) concerning the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind. But one thing about the Iowa case is particularly disturbing and requires comment. It is that section of the article which reads: Had Trust of Boss The manipulation was made easier because Pepper, who can see, had won the trust of agency director R. Creig Slayton, who is blind. As a result, Slayton, on at least one occasion, signed an authorization document, the purpose of which had been misrepresented by Pepper. Having the confidence of his boss `put him in a position of trust that allowed him to engineer some of these transactions,' Kiplinger [the auditor] said. This is what the article says, and the thrust of it is unmistakably clear. After all, the auditor is saying (and there will doubtless be many to agree with him), what can you expect? Slayton, the director, is blind so how could he prevent this sort of thing from happening? He is at the mercy of any sighted person who can get his trust and hoodwink him. Perhaps there is room for pity, but none for respect. To all of this I say nonsense. For twenty years (from 1958 to 1978) I was director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, so I know from personal experience how the procedures work and what can and cannot be done. While I was there, I administered the receipt and expenditure of tens of millions of dollars; I am totally blind; not every person with whom I had dealings was an angel; and the audits indicate that not one dime of money was misappropriated or stolen. This is no accident. I am not saying that there is no conceivable circumstance under which someone could have engaged in theft of funds, but I am saying that I do not believe an incident such as the one involving Terry Pepper could have happened under the rules I established. I am saying that there was plenty of advance warning in the Pepper case and that it happened because of carelessness and ineptitude, not blindness. To tell you why I say this, I must give you some of the particulars of the operation of the Iowa agency. As I have already said, it was known as the Commission for the Blind in those days, so I will simply refer to it in that way. The Commission does not write its own checks. It prepares vouchers and supporting data, which are then sent to the office of the state comptroller for review. The comptroller's office writes the checks and returns them with supporting data to the Commission. In my day (surely they still do it) we submitted to the comptroller a list of the names of the people authorized to sign the voucher documents. I suppose I need not add that the accountant's name was not on the list. Only the director or his designee could sign the voucher documents, and neither the director nor his designee could (by the rules I established) prepare the documents. As a general practice I had my deputy director (sighted) sign the voucher documents, but the deputy was required to check with me before signing any document involving more than $500 or which in any way seemed unusual. (In the event there was any question about it, it was defined as unusual. ) Did I ever sign a voucher document? Yes. But I never did it without asking a sighted person (not the accountant who brought it to me) to verify it. Did this mean that I didn't trust my associates? No. Did it mean that I didn't administer the program? Ask the people who were there. I administered it, and I trusted my colleagues but it is not only foolish but sinful to place needless temptation in the way of fallible human beings. In this connection let me quote from the state audit which was recently issued. It says: Board minutes were altered on one occasion to fraudulently show that the Board authorized purchases for furnishings which were delivered to Mr. Pepper's personal residence. When I was Director of the Commission, the accountant did not have access to the minutes. They were kept locked in the administrative office and for the very reason here illustrated. There were other safeguards. When the mail came to the Commission, my deputy opened and reviewed it all of it: that for the accountant, and that for every other department. It would, of course, have been easier (some would probably say more efficient Pepper, for instance) simply to have given the accounting mail to the accountant. That procedure would have prevented annoying delays and after all, who has more knowledge about the finances than the accountant? Some people were irritated with our mail policy, but I believe that most saw the sense of it. The mail policy applied, as I have said, to every aspect of the program, not just to accounting. Regardless of how some felt about it, it worked and we did not have a Terry Pepper case. Moreover, whatever people may have thought about the Commission for the Blind or its director, never once did I hear even a hint of weak administration because of blindness. I heard plenty of other things but not that. The audit which was triggered by the Pepper caper is entitled: Special Report, Iowa Department for the Blind, Special Investigation Misappropriated Funds, January 13, 1982 through September 15, 1989. A review of the document indicates that Pepper signed authorizations, prepared voucher documents, wrote letters of purchase, intercepted the incoming mail, had access to the agency's minutes, and presumably did anything else he pleased. Why did the office of the state comptroller not raise questions about such a policy, and where (in the name of sanity) was the agency's director and his assistant? Again I say that we are not dealing with blindness but an astounding lack of understanding and responsibility. So where does the Iowa Department for the Blind go from here? And while we are on the subject, where does the public image of blindness go in the state of Iowa? What the auditor has said and what the Register has printed will be much more in accord with the general notions of blindness than with what we worked (with some success) through the years to build. What impact will the Pepper case have when the next blind applicant for Director is considered? What will it do to the agency's credibility and flexibility in authorizing innovative expenditures to help blind clients? Most of the staff at the Iowa Commission for the Blind (and I am sure that many still are) were thoroughly competent and good people but when one considers what the Iowa Commission for the Blind was and what it has now become, one can only turn away in disgust and say, YUK! It is no wonder that some now call it the Iowa Pepper Mill. In this discussion I have not dealt with the proposed treatment of Pepper, which is nothing short of nauseating. If Pepper is guilty (and apparently he says that he is), then he ought not to be let off with a mere public tongue lashing and a pay back with blue smoke and mirrors. The damage he has done to the blind of Iowa and their programs is incalculable. But there are also others. The damage which has been done by the people who initiated the sloppy procedures that permitted this miserable fiasco to happen is almost equally incalculable. They, too, should be held to account. There is one final thing that I want to say. If an unsigned article appears in this magazine, it ordinarily (not always, but ordinarily) means that I either wrote it or edited it so substantially that it comes to the same thing. I did not write the article on the Iowa Department for the Blind which appeared in the January, 1990, Braille Monitor . It was written by Associate Editor Barbara Pierce and published without my reading it, something which is unusual. But I wrote every word of the present article, and did so after careful consideration and reflection. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing a few apologists defensively tell me that the Iowa Commission for the Blind is just as good as it ever was. Surely we can now lay that insult to intelligence to rest and get on with the business of trying to rebuild decent programs for the blind of the state. Here is the article from the Des Moines Register : Ex-State Official Admits Stealing Taxpayer Money by Thomas A. Fogarty and Lou Ortiz A former state administrator who used taxpayers' money to decorate his West Des Moines condominium to suit his champagne tastes pleaded guilty Friday to theft charges. He also agreed to repay the state of Iowa nearly $103,000. Terry Pepper's guilty pleas in Polk County District Court followed by hours issuance of a report by State Auditor Richard Johnson's office outlining an elaborate scheme in which Pepper was able to charge thousands of dollars in home furnishings, clothing, and stereo equipment, then have state government pay the bill. Deputy State Auditor Kasey Kiplinger said Pepper's case is perhaps the largest case of misappropriation of public money in Iowa in his two decades in the auditor's office. Until he resigned last September, Pepper, 40, was the No. 2 administrator at the Iowa Department for the Blind, where he had worked for eight years. According to the audit report, Pepper was able to steal from the state in two ways: by depositing checks written to the agency in his personal bank account, and by arranging the issuance of state checks to pay personal charge accounts. Had Trust of Boss The manipulation was made easier because Pepper, who can see, had won the trust of agency director R. Creig Slayton, who is blind. As a result, Slayton, on at least one occasion, signed an authorization document, the purpose of which had been misrepresented by Pepper. Having the confidence of his boss put him in a position of trust that allowed him to engineer some of these transactions, Kiplinger said. The audit report suggests that Pepper spared little expense when it came to redecorating his condominium at 1100 50th Street in West Des Moines. On three occasions Pepper managed to have the state issue checks to Younkers department store or its home furnishing store to pay off personal charge accounts he had there. They totaled $35,219. $101 Gravy Dish Among the Younkers purchases paid off with government money, and the prices paid, were: carpeting, $4,004; a bamboo chair, $272; a gold stallion, $230; a brass table, $562; a gravy dish, $101; a covered vegetable dish, $162; a cream and sugar dish, $108; and a coffee pot, $115. In addition, he charged hundreds of dollars worth of sheets, underwear, and clothing, much of it of the expensive Ralph Lauren Polo line. Pepper also managed to have the state pay Best Buy Stores $4,102 for television and stereo equipment. Other personal purchases billed to the state include a $340 brass lamp and a $570 floral arrangement. Pepper was able to make his scheme work by generating fake documentation that led state officials to believe they were issuing state checks for legitimate agency expenses. Fabricated Documents On June 1, 1988, for example, the audit report says Pepper mailed or personally delivered it isn't clear which a $20,342 state-issued check to Younkers to be applied to his personal charge accounts. The audit report showed that Pepper had fabricated documents to make officials believe they were paying Younkers for remodeling in the Department for the Blind's district offices. Pepper triggered an investigation into his activities last August when he attempted to deposit into his personal bank account a $346,146 check from the U.S. government to the Department for the Blind. A Des Moines bank questioned the legitimacy of the deposit, which was made at an automatic teller machine. Following that investigation, the Polk County attorney's office charged Pepper with theft for earlier deposits of checks totaling more than $61,000 written to the state agency. He pleaded innocent to the charges in October. Pepper quit his state job last autumn when criminal charges appeared imminent. Changed Plea In a hearing before Polk County District Judge Arthur Gamble, Pepper changed his plea on the theft charges to guilty. Prosecutors didn't file an additional charge on the $41,598 that state government paid to satisfy his personal charge accounts. Pepper faces up to 20 years in prison and up to $20,000 in fines when he is sentenced February 26. Under a plea agreement, prosecutors will refrain from recommending a prison term. Pepper declined to comment after the hearing. His lawyer, Robert Kromminga, said as much as $25,000 of the promised restitution would be in the form of forfeited pension money and vacation accumulated during the time Pepper worked for the state. An additional sum, which Kromminga said he could not estimate, will come from the sale of the West Des Moines condominium and from investments. The balance will be in monthly installments, Kromminga said. He has a master's degree [in public administration], so he's employable, Kromminga said. THE FIGHTING ELVES by Michael Baillif Michael Baillif is the President of the National Federation of the Blind Student Division. This article is reprinted from the Spring/Summer issue of the Student Slate, the newsletter of the Student Division. Mr. Baillif, who is a first year student at the Yale University School of Law, delivered The Fighting Elves at the 1989 meeting of the Student Division, which took place during the national convention in Denver, Colorado. Here is what he had to say: Y e fighting elves of the world, unite, for you have nothing to lose but your diminutive status. So read the banners which fluttered from the battlements in a distant place in a time long, long ago. Elves from throughout the land were being summoned to a desperate and determined elvish muster. From far and wide the elves marched, heeding the call for unity and answering the summons of their elvish leaders, for it was clear to one and all that the time for a last stand short though it might be was upon them. By the thousands the elves gathered at their stronghold, The Bastion De Minutia. Their mission? Once and for all to confront and destroy the tyranny practiced over them by the Big People. You see, this distant land was cohabited by people of all sizes. Yet for uncounted ages, those labeled (through lack of height) as elves were subject to foolish and malicious, prejudicial and discriminatory treatment. Finally, the elves had simply had enough. They were no longer willing to accept the inferior status to which they had been relegated solely on the basis of reduced stature. So the elvish muster went forward. All who arrived at the Bastion De Minutia were outfitted with appropriate weapons and armor. The atmosphere was grave and determined, yet also festive and full of life. Battle plans were slowly and carefully forged while jubilant parties sprang up throughout the camp. The elves believed that their battle was destined to be a difficult and perilous one. Yet the very act of confronting their oppression was, for many of them, a relief and a victory. When the battle plan was finally announced, it first met astonished silence, and then tumultuous cheers rose from the Bastion De Minutia. The elves were to march upon the capital of the Big People, Long Island, as it was commonly known. The assault was to be undertaken boldly and openly. The elves would face not only the weapons and war machines of the big people, but also the demeaning misconceptions of others and their own feelings of inferiority which had for so long held them down. Cries of Reduced stature, yes; reduced rights, no! and With elvish might, we will fight! rang out and would probably have continued all night long had not one of the elvish leaders climbed to the top of the battlement and gestured for silence. He then proceeded (for the next five hours) to chronicle the many grievances of the long-suffering elves. There are varied accounts of his lengthy oratory. Here is an excerpt which, from our perspective as students, we may find particularly interesting and relevant. Midway through his declamation, as some listened with rapt attention, others snored noisily, and still others passed bottles of wine to and fro, the elvish leader waxed eloquent on the subjects of job opportunities and educational possibilities. The current situation is disgraceful and unacceptable, said he. It is the negative stereotypes and ignorant misconceptions about shortness which keep us down. People of height assume that simply because we are short we can work only half as well and half as long as they. In most cases they are not even willing to give us the opportunity to disprove this limiting and ridiculous assumption. Since almost no one will hire us, the big people see that most of us are not working, then claim that we lack not only ability, but motivation as well. If some of our number do succeed in finding work and do well for themselves, they are designated as `super elves' and set apart from the rest of us as the exception. What is truly tragic, my short friends, is that some of our community actually believe what they are told by the tall people. They accept the notion that being an elf is shameful and try desperately to pass as something that they are not. In fact, rather than being proud of themselves as they are and claiming that it is respectable to be short, they choose to assert that they are not elves at all, but only `height-impaired.' These people do not help us in our efforts to gain equal treatment and status. But even more tragically, they hurt themselves by selling themselves short, by not demanding of life all it has to offer, and by not believing in their hearts that they can do and be whatever they dare to dream. Such are the bitter fruits of oppression and discrimination which we have been forced to eat for too long! Now let's talk about some of the weeds in the garden of our land's educational system. The big people take tests for admission into what they call `institutions of higher learning.' As elves we are effectively prevented from competing in these same tests. Why? Because these tests (when taken by elves) are not valid. They say that we take the examinations under non-standard conditions. And what may these non-standard conditions be? Our desks are shorter and our pencils not as long as those of the tall people. Do these alternative accommodations affect the evaluative outcome of our test scores? Of course not! I know it; you know it; but, until now at least, the big people in their tall ivory towers have slammed their windows upon our cries for common sense and equitable treatment. Within the educational institutions themselves, unfortunately, things are often no better. Our young people enter these institutions of higher learning in the same frame of mind as all other students rather timid, apprehensive, and unsure of their own abilities. Nevertheless, they are willing to put in the work and take their chances in an attempt to feel a sense of accomplishment, to achieve success, and to gain that personal development which can occur only through the process of trial and error. Some altruistic big people, however, believing that we elves are at a disadvantage and cannot conceivably do well in school without their aid, have established Offices of Abbreviated Student Services. Some of these ASSes, as they are affectionately known, provide services which help (or at least do not hinder) academically oriented elves. Unfortunately, many of them patronize and custodialize us elves. They attempt to do for us what we ought to be doing for ourselves, taking a hand in our academic endeavors, speaking with our professors, and standing as the on-campus authority on shortness. They work to eliminate the possibility of failure; and in doing so, they obliterate our potential for true success. If we are never challenged, how can we ever hope to develop? I ask you, what have we come to as a class when our best and brightest young people are custodialized by ASSes? The elvish orator spoke through the night, firing his elvish legions up to a fever pitch, inspiring them for their legendary march, which would commence with the sunrise. Now let us leave the elvish hordes for the moment in order to address two very important questions, the first of which you may already be asking yourself and perhaps your neighbors as well. It goes like this: What in the world does the elves' struggle for liberation have to do with the Presidential Report which is listed in the Student Division agenda? The answer is simple nothing. Don't worry, though. The Student Division Board is a sociable group, and I know that, if you are interested, any of us would be very pleased to discuss with you over a drink, or two, or three, our accomplishments in the past year. Much more important than our recent achievements, however, is our present reality, and about this we can learn much from our elvish contemporaries. As to the second question, let me ask you this, and please consider the answer carefully and honestly. Do you ever feel small because of your blindness? Do you ever feel as though you are an elf, filled with feelings of insecurity, incompetence, and inadequacy, attempting to function in a world of giants? When people have told you (either directly or indirectly) that, because you are blind, you are somehow less a human being with less to offer, less ability, and less potential for a meaningful life, has any part of you ever believed it? If you are human and if you are honest with yourself, then the answer for you, as for me, is yes. Now we must consider why this is so and what we must do about it. The first part is easy. It is so because of negative and ignorant public attitudes about blindness. We must overcome these attitudes by educating the general public as well as ourselves that blindness is just a characteristic which (with proper training, positive attitudes, and the opportunity to put them to work) can be simply a nuisance and nothing more. If deep down you doubt this statement, look around for the rest of the convention, and you will see many, many blind people who confidently and competently lead lives as fulfilling and achievement-oriented as anyone who is sighted. While you are looking around this week, apply a slightly altered version of the Biblical Test of Gomorrah to the National Federation of the Blind. See if you encounter just one person who has something to offer you be it friendship, leadership, or a role model. If you find this person, then stay, take what that person has to offer, take what this organization has to give; and then, in your own way, in your own time, give what you can to other individuals, to the National Federation of the Blind, and ultimately to yourself. Let us undertake together the education of society, which also includes ourselves. As we accomplish this education, there will be times when the intransigent few who simply will not listen who will not be educated must be decisively dealt with if they stand in our way. On these occasions regrettably, sorrowfully, but nonetheless determinedly, we march side by side to war just as do our elvish friends whom we have left waiting for too long. After the orator had ceased and the sun was rising on the eastern horizon, the elves assembled in orderly ranks line upon line stretching away beyond sight. Then, after a great clashing of weapons and loud shouts of exortation, the elves commenced to march toward their destination. On their road a very strange and surprising circumstance befell the zealous elvish troops. They began to grow. The very act of coming together, of organizing, of taking a stand for their own dignity and self-worth and the very act of confronting those attitudes and institutions which had for so long held them down inspired in the elves a growth which made their armed assault on Long Island unnecessary. In overcoming the inertia and feelings of isolated powerlessness in order to take the initial step on their march, the elves had fought and won the greatest battle which they would ever face. As a result of this event, only a few with the physical qualities of the elves still exist today. Nevertheless, their spiritual legacy is part of us. Within each of us is the tendency to shrink or grow, depending upon how we deal with our own characteristics. Circumstances summon us daily to march. We need only gather within our own organization, the National Federation of the Blind, and take those initial steps on the warrior road in order to move decisively toward ultimate victory. Let us learn from the example of our elvish forerunners and, by working together, help each other to grow. Our battle is perhaps destined to be longer than that of the elves, but it lies down the same road. Like the fighting elves, we should unite, for we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Through shared effort and commitment, let us march together toward, not only security, equality, and opportunity, but also toward the personal confidence, competence, and stature which we need to live in the world, succeed in the classroom, and excel in life. We have much to do and many challenges to undertake. The days of our diminutive status are past; let us march together into a promising future in which our collective action aimed at achieving first-class citizenship is marked by shared comradeship, effort, and commitment. REFLECTIONS ON THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT by Kenneth Jernigan No proposed piece of legislation during the past thirty years has created more comment and soul searching among the disabled of this country than the Americans with Disabilities Act. The bill passed the Senate in 1989 and at the time of this writing (early 1990) is awaiting action by the House of Representatives. At first glance it would seem that no disabled American could possibly object to this bill. It would be like opposing motherhood, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny but some do oppose it, and even more have serious reservations about it in its present form that is, the form in which it passed the Senate and is now being considered by the House. At its 1989 convention in Denver, Colorado, the National Federation of the Blind passed a resolution declaring that if the bill could not be amended to cure its weaknesses, it should be opposed. In the circumstances it seems desirable to examine the proposed law and consider its possible advantages and drawbacks. Obviously it is not easy to oppose such legislation, for the enthusiasm of those who favor it is at such a fever pitch that any cautionary comments (regardless of how sound or constructive) are likely to be taken out of context, distorted, or twisted to convey meanings they were never intended to have. Nevertheless, this legislation is so far-reaching and all-inclusive that it cannot be allowed to go forward without analysis so here is how we see it, how we think it affects the blind as it is currently written, and how we think it should (at a minimum) be amended. Purpose The bill as it passed the Senate says that the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act is To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. The proponents of the legislation say that it will give to qualified individuals with disabilities the right to equal participation in employment, public accommodations, transportation, and other activities. They say that it will do this by mandating special accommodations for the disabled. But some of us who have doubts about the requirements of the Act feel that by eliminating certain problems and discriminations it may actually create others. Particularly, we are concerned that the bill is so written that the disabled may (whether they need them or not) be required to accept the special accommodations mandated by the bill and (regardless of their abilities, desires, or circumstances) be prevented from using the same facilities and services that are available to others. Background on the Americans with Disabilities Act and its Comparison with Existing Civil Rights Laws The Americans with Disabilities Act has been proposed to prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities. Under the bill it would be discriminatory to deny disabled persons access to (1) employment; (2) services, programs, and benefits of state and local governments (including public transportation); (3) public accommodations and transportation provided by private entities; and (4) telecommunications services. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first federal nondiscrimination statute of general applicability to handicapped individuals. The law itself originally consisted of one sentence, specifying that recipients of federal aid could not subject otherwise qualified handicapped individuals to discrimination under any program or activity receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance. The Americans with Disabilities Act significantly extends this requirement and vastly expands its reach. Following the language and concepts of the section 504 regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act identifies physical barriers to the disabled as discriminatory. The premise of the bill is that limits on physical access lead to restricted participation or outright denial of opportunity. Under the bill, opportunities are to be barrier free. A legal standard of what is called accommodated participation is used as the rule of thumb for nondiscrimination. Physical accessibility requires modifications to architectural design features. Changes in programs in order to accommodate them to the physical limitations of the disabled are also required. The premise of the section 504 regulations has been that the standard for prohibiting discrimination against disabled persons differs substantively from the standard used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The standard used in that Act (the Civil Rights standard) is that race, sex, national origin, and religion must not stand in the way of equal opportunity. Equal participation must be afforded to everyone regardless of differing traits. The Americans with Disabilities Act uses the accommodated participation standard first developed with the section 504 regulations. Rather than being disregarded, disability must be considered. Equal opportunity as contemplated in the Americans with Disabilities Act means participation, with or without modifications. Failure to accommodate programs to the disabled (or failure to provide services that are separate or different from the services provided to others) is expected to result in a denial of opportunity and is, therefore, to be considered discriminatory. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not outwardly reject the equal participation standard of the Civil Rights Act, but in emphasis the bill strongly favors accommodation modifying buildings, buses, airplanes, and the environment in general as well as the establishment of separate programs. In some instances (with respect to some disabilities) it may be reasonable to argue that accommodations must be made to prevent discrimination. In other instances (such as in the case of discrimination against the blind) so-called accommodations may often themselves be discriminatory. This fact must be considered in the further development of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Otherwise, the Act itself could become a source of unintentional discrimination against some persons with disabilities. Nature of Discrimination on Grounds of Blindness Blindness is unquestionably a disability as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act. This inclusion implies that discrimination against the blind arises primarily from lack of physical access or lack of special accommodations. The implication is not only incorrect; it is dangerously incorrect. Structural characteristics do not ordinarily prevent blind persons from having full and equal access to any buildings or facilities used by anybody else. Blind persons are customarily able to use programs, services, and facilities without modification. Discrimination against the blind comes from the false assumption that sight is essential for successful performance of most tasks. Blindness is the inability to see, but it is not generally disabling. Alternative techniques used by blind persons work as well, and as efficiently, as visual techniques used by sighted persons. It is, therefore, discriminatory to require the blind to be treated differently from the sighted when such treatment is not warranted. Unwanted accommodations for the blind discriminate by falsely portraying the blind as limited in ways that they are not. Increased attention to civil rights for the disabled has led to misplaced and discriminatory uses of accommodation. One example is offering a wheelchair to assist a blind person in moving through an airport or similar facility. If the blind person rejects the offer, preferring to walk, it is not unusual for airport officials to try to force the blind person to use the wheelchair. What starts as an attempted accommodation is now discrimination. Another example is insisting that all blind people must sit at the front of public buses because those seats are designated for the elderly and handicapped. In either example, the blind person who can walk and move as well as anybody else is made to appear as limited. The person may, indeed, be permitted to have access to the building or the bus, but the access is certainly on discriminatory terms for that blind individual or for the blind as a class. The experience of the blind with Section 504 should be instructive. Programs are now established to, as the terminology has it, take care of the needs of the blind. In the bus example, Section 504 clearly prohibits denying service to the blind. It does not clearly prohibit the bus driver from insisting that a blind person sit in one of the front seats designated for the elderly and handicapped. Some may regard disputes about seating as quibbling, but Rosa Parks and others brought the entire civil rights movement to a national focus by exactly this type of issue. Section 504 requires that disabled persons be accommodated on the bus. If blind persons who are capable of sitting anywhere are forced to accept seating accommodations and use the seats designated for the elderly and handicapped, they are being subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions. It is exactly this type of situation, resulting from Section 504, that the blind find objectionable. We are expected (in fact, often required ) to act as if we are disabled in ways that we are not. Accepting the blind on terms of full equality is the proper policy of nondiscrimination. Conversely, it is discriminatory to assume that participation for the blind is made possible only by means of what are called accommodations. When that assumption is applied, the result is discrimination treating the blind as disabled in ways that they are not. Need for a Participation without Modification Amendment In the Americans with Disabilities Act Serious problems of unintentional (but very real) discrimination arise from the accommodated participation standard in the Americans with Disabilities Act. As with women and minorities protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most appropriate legal standard for the blind and others is equal participation. This means that the terms and conditions of participation are applicable alike to all persons. Accommodated participation means that modifications must be made so that persons with disabilities will be given an opportunity. Disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act is treated as a generic condition. This leads to inappropriate use of accommodated participation. The fact is that the blind have the unique condition of not seeing, which is not generally disabling. Discrimination occurs against the blind when blindness is treated as generally disabling. The experience of the blind with the airlines exemplifies the problem. The advent of federal civil rights laws for handicapped individuals brought pressure on commercial airlines to serve persons with disabilities. Physical barriers of aircraft and equipment had prevented service in some instances particularly, to those using wheelchairs. This was never a problem for the blind. In the case of the blind, air transportation was almost always provided on essentially nondiscriminatory terms. We bought our ticket, got on the plane, sat where we chose, left the plane at our destination, and went about our business like anybody else. Certainly (in contrast to the situation of some disabled persons) there were no policies to deny or restrict service to the blind. Blindness was not regarded as a disability for purposes of air travel. The pressure brought on commercial airlines by persons with certain disabilities (particularly, those with orthopedic problems) may have been necessary, but the effect it has had on blind persons has been a civil rights disaster. When the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration began to plan ways of, as the term is used, accommodating the handicapped in order to (again, as the jargon has it) serve them, they included the blind in the general category. All of a sudden it became unacceptable to think of the blind as not disabled for purposes of air travel. So the blind were made to be disabled and restrictions, thought to be appropriate for the disabled, have been wrongfully imposed on the blind ever since. This policy has now been pursued (first condescendingly and then when the blind objected, aggressively and with hostility) by the airlines. Ironically, the net effect of the civil rights laws for the disabled has been to place new and unwarranted restrictions on the blind in air travel. This is the result of the generic disability approach in setting the standard for nondiscrimination. Relying on federal law, the airlines are now attempting to make the blind disabled in ways that they are not. This and many other examples justify the concern of the blind that the Americans with Disabilities Act will cause unintentional, massive discrimination. The bill (as introduced and passed by the Senate) presumes that disability (every disability) implies the need for what is called an accommodated form of participation. Covered entities will want to comply with the Act by making accommodations, especially those of minimal cost. As with the airline example, the blind will be expected to accept policies which apply to the generic disability class, including accommodated participation and the restrictions that necessarily accompany it. The accommodated participation standard is perhaps appropriate for many persons with disabilities. This standard may help make their participation possible. For blind persons, however, the accommodation standard incorrectly assumes a degree of inability and directs unwanted and even harmful changes. The individual's true abilities are overshadowed by accommodated participation, and the changes made become the focus of everyone's attention. It is assumed that the individual could not participate were it not for the accommodation. To use another example, some people now assume that blind people cannot cross street intersections without special signaling devices. The devices are audible traffic signals which emit a sound (often a bird call) to indicate the changing of the traffic lights. The modification has been promoted by persons who assume that blind people will not know when or where to cross the street if they are not given a special audible cue. But rather than being a form of assistance to the blind, this adaptation becomes (in the minds of most blind persons) a hindrance, falsely presuming that blindness is an impairment to street crossing. The fact is that blind people cross streets by themselves every day without audible traffic signals. We have been doing so ever since cars, street crossings, and traffic lights were invented. The sound of the traffic and the direction of its flow give all the information that is needed. An audible traffic signal adds nothing, and many blind people say that the additional sound only confuses them. Most significantly, this modification implies that the blind cannot cross ordinary streets. In this respect, it is a damaging and false public statement that the blind are disabled in ways that they are not. To give only one example of the damage, potential employers will be less likely to offer jobs to the blind because of the implication of helplessness and the specter of added costs for special modifications and accommodations in these businesses and neighborhoods. It is harmful to blind persons to have accommodations being made for them that falsely imply limitations caused by blindness which do not exist. Opportunities necessarily depend on public understanding and social acceptance. This will be the case with or without the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blind people want to be accepted on terms of equality with the sighted, having the opportunity to succeed or fail on merit and being judged on their ability to perform. This is a proper and realistically achievable objective. Our equality will be blocked, however, if we are faced with a federal law that implies a degree of permanent inequality. Explanation of the Right to Participate Without Modification Amendment The amendment we propose would prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities by clarifying each person's right to participate in programs and activities that are not separately established for the disabled or modified for their use. The bill already requires accommodated participation when necessary to give persons with disabilities opportunities that would otherwise be denied. The amendment, entitled Right to Participate Without Modification would provide each person with a disability the right to participate in programs and activities that are not separate or different from the programs and activities used by others. It would provide that the existence of separate forms of participation for the disabled may not be used to deny an individual the opportunity to participate in the same p