THE BRAILLE MONITOR
Vol. 45, No. 10 December 2002
Barbara Pierce, Editor
Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT
National Office
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
NFBnet.org: http://www.nfbnet.org
Web site address: http://www.nfb.org
NFB-NEWSLINE® number: 1-888-882-1629
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
Vol. 45, No. 10 December 2002
Contents
Convention Bulletin 2003
NAC: A Moribund System Hoping for Revival
by Marc Maurer
Rhode Island Department of Education:
Cutting or Gutting Services to Blind Children?
by Barbara Cheadle
Victory for the Blind in California Rehabilitation
by Jim Willows
What to Do in Washington, D.C.
by Sandy Halverson
By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them
by Peggy Elliott
Peirce Makes It Possible for Blind and Visually Impaired
Students to Earn a College Degree
by Patricia Rucker
NFB Launches National Meet-the-Blind Campaign
by Lorinda Riddle
Why You Should Take a Risk
by Julie Deden
A Morsel to Chew On
by Barbara Walker
Distinguished Educator of Blind Children Award for 2003
by Sharon Maneki
The 2003 Blind Educator of the Year Award
by Stephen O. Benson
Letter to Blind Vendors:
Suggestion to Us All
by Kevan Worley
Social Security, SSI, and Medicare Facts for 2003
by James McCarthy
Women Volunteers Needed
by Barbara Pierce
Recipes
Monitor Miniatures
Copyright © 2002 National Federation of the Blind
Lead Photos:
Thursday morning, November 21, a large group gathered at the National Center for the Blind to celebrate the publication of a sixty-four-page book titled Touch the Universe: A NASA Braille Book of Astronomy. Blind students from five states (Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Maryland, and New York) came to the event. The visitors had a chance to explore NFB headquarters as well as getting their hands on the book with its fourteen photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. The book presents color images of planets, nebulae, stars, and galaxies. Each image is embossed with lines, bumps, and other textures. The raised patterns translate colors, shapes, and other intricate details of the cosmic objects. The book also incorporates Braille and large-print descriptions for each of the photographs.
1. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Students gathered in the Harbor Room, where Barbara Cheadle talked with them about the significance of the fact that blind students now have access to some of the photos their sighted friends have been able to study for years.]
2. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Several officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) took part in the morning's activities. Pictured left to right are Mr. Courtney Stadd, NASA chief of staff and White House Liaison; NFB President Marc Maurer; Dr. Edward Weiler, NASA Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science; and Dr. Kent Cullers, blind radio astronomer and director of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence R&D, SETI Institute.]
3. [PHOTO/CAPTION: In the large conference room at the Center, students were able to examine copies of Touch the Universe. Here Amy Herstein of Maryland inspects one copy of the book while President Maurer leans over Jenny Suchan of Maryland as they both examine another.]
4. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Also in the conference room, book author Noreen Grice shows a copy of Touch the Universe to Mikaela Stevens of Washington (left) and her twin Makenzie (right). A large book poster can be seen behind them.]
5. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Anne Taylor of the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind staff demonstrates the Tactile Image Enhancer Junior to a group of students. They are examining an astronomy picture downloaded from the Internet.
6. [PHOTO/CAPTION: President Maurer stands at a podium in the dining room. Seated at the head table are (left to right) Terry Garrett and Paul Clarke, students, and their science teacher Ben Wentworth from the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind and author Noreen Grice. Mr. Wentworth served as consultant to Ms. Grice as she was creating the tactile versions of the Hubble pictures. Mr. Garrett and Mr. Clarke assisted their teacher.]
7. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Noreen Grice signs a copy of her book for Joshua Gregory of Maryland. Karl Merk-Adams of Michigan waits his turn in the background, book and cane in hand.]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: The Galt House at night]
Convention Bulletin 2003
It is time to plan for the 2003 convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Again this year we will gather in Louisville, Kentucky, home of the Kentucky Derby and site of the memorable 2002 NFB convention.
We will return to the hospitality of the Galt House Hotel and the Galt House East Tower. Once again our hotel rates are the envy of all. For the 2003 convention they are singles, doubles, and twins $57 and triples and quads $63. In addition to the room rates there will be a tax, which at present is 13.95 percent. No charge will be made for children fifteen and under in the room with parents as long as no extra bed is requested.
For 2003 convention room reservations you should write directly to the Galt House Hotel, 140 N. Fourth Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202, or call (502) 589-5200. You can make reservations for either the Galt House Hotel (known familiarly as the Galt House West) or the Galt House East Tower (called the Galt House East) by calling this number. The restaurants and outdoor pool are located on the west side of the facility, and the East Tower contains a number of suites consisting of a bedroom, bath, and living room with a refrigerator and wet bar. The hotel will want a deposit of $60 or a credit card number. If you use a credit card, the deposit will be charged against your card immediately, just as would be the case with a $60 check. If a reservation is cancelled prior to June 1, 2003, $30 of the $60 deposit will be returned. Otherwise refunds will not be made.
The West Tower has twenty-five floors, and the East Tower has eighteen. Guest-room amenities include cable television, coffee pot, iron and ironing board, hair dryer, and dataport.
The Galt House has two restaurants--the River Grill, which is moderately priced, and the Flagship, a revolving restaurant on the roof, which provides one of Louisville's finest dining experiences, with prices to match. See later issues of the Monitor for information about tours and other attractions in the Greater Louisville area.
The 2003 convention of the National Federation of the Blind will be a truly exciting and memorable event, with an unparalleled program and rededication to the goals and work of our movement. Make plans now to be a part of it. The schedule this year is back to our usual one. Preconvention seminars for parents of blind children and other groups and set-up of the exhibit hall will take place on Saturday, June 28, and adjournment will be Friday, July 4, at 5:00 p.m. Convention registration will begin on Sunday, June 29, and both Sunday and Monday will be filled with meetings of divisions and committees, including the Monday morning annual meeting of the board of directors of the National Federation of the Blind, which is open to all.
General convention sessions begin on Tuesday, July 1, and continue through the afternoon of Friday, July 4. The annual banquet will take place on Thursday evening, July 3. To assure yourself a room in the headquarters hotel at convention rates, you must make reservations early. An ambitious renovation program will remove some rooms from our block this year, and the suites in the East Tower are always snapped up quickly, as many learned to their regret last year. The hotel will be ready to take your call or deal with your written request by January 1.
Remember that as usual we need door prizes from state affiliates, local chapters, and individuals. Once again prizes should be small in size but large in value. Cash, of course, is always appropriate and welcome. As a general rule we ask that prizes of all kinds have a value of at least $25. Drawings will occur steadily throughout the convention sessions, and you can anticipate a grand prize of truly impressive proportions to be drawn at the banquet. You may bring door prizes with you or send them ahead of time (identifying the item and donor and listing the value in print and Braille) to Kevin Pearl, 2716 Hillside Terrace, Louisville, Kentucky 40206‑2513.
The best collection of exhibits, featuring new technology; meetings of our special interest groups, committees, and divisions; memorable tours arranged by the host Kentucky affiliate; the most stimulating and provocative program items of any meeting of the blind in the world; the chance to renew friendships in our Federation family; and the unparalleled opportunity to be where the real action is and where decisions are being made--all of these mean you will not want to miss being a part of the 2003 national convention. We'll see you in Louisville in 2003!
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Marc Maurer]
NAC: A Moribund System Hoping for Revival
by Marc Maurer
From the Editor: For many years Federationists considered that the annual meeting of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired (NAC) provided the highlight of the fall social season. Not that we participated in the meeting each year, but we were certainly present, making sure that the public knew that consumers of services in the blindness field were not satisfied with the accreditation process provided by NAC.
Then NAC sank into almost total obscurity, and picketing its meetings appeared to give the body more significance than it deserved, so with some regret for past enjoyment and much optimism for a future free of NAC, we abandoned our annual NAC-tracking and NAC carol singing.
Recently, however, we learned that NAC has decided to conduct what NAC officials characterize as a summit meeting in an attempt to revitalize NAC and its view of the world. The event seems an excellent opportunity to dust off our hiking shoes and revive the NAC carols of NAC holiday seasons past.
In the following article President Maurer explains how we got to this point. This is what he says:
NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired), perhaps the most controversial and destructive entity ever created in the field of work with the blind, came into being in the latter half of the 1960's. With its establishment, it brought to programming for the blind the most confrontive and strife-ridden era known to the blind. NAC sought to control all of work for the blind through a system that made funding dependent on NAC's approval. At the same time NAC ignored the views of the organized blind movement, and it accredited agencies that permitted some of the shabbiest practices.
In 1972, with the influence of NAC increasing and with NAC officials continuing to refuse to consider the views of the blind except as a matter of tokenism, the blind declared that NAC's unethical practices would no longer be permitted to go unchallenged. We decided we would track down NAC wherever it went and expose its questionable tactics to the public. With this declaration began the NAC-tracking period. Whenever the NAC board met to try to expand its influence and cut out the blind, blind representatives from across the United States met on the streets to protest. These confrontations continued late into the 1980's. By that time NAC's capacity for destructiveness to the blind had diminished--the failure of ethics had become clear. Furthermore, a period of harmony and growth had begun.
About two years ago the man who was to become executive director of NAC, Mr. Steven Hegedeos, came to the National Center for the Blind to discuss the value of NAC. He said he was unfamiliar with the history of NAC but that he believed in the value of the accreditation process. Members of the National Federation of the Blind told him about the spirit and performance of NAC and gave him background material. We agreed that good programs for the blind are important, but we pointed out that NAC is not the way to get them. It has always been a political organization established for political purposes and functioning in a political way, and it cannot improve the performance of agencies for the blind.
At the 2001 convention of the Federation held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, NAC made a presentation inviting the Federation to believe that its standard of operation had changed. NAC urged the Federation to work with it to bring NAC back to life. The Federation declined the invitation but agreed to have three representatives meet with three NAC representatives. The NFB representatives were Mr. James Gashel, Mrs. Peggy Elliott, and I serving as our president. NAC's representatives were its president, Mr. Steven Obremski; its executive director, Mr. Steven Hegedeos; and a member of its board, Dr. Lee Robinson, who also serves as the head of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. A report of this meeting was printed in the Braille Monitor for May 2002.
The report of the NAC meeting was delayed in publication from September until May because the meeting had relatively little new content. However, NAC was suggesting to people that it and the Federation were working closely with each other, and this false impression had to be corrected. Consequently, the May 2002 issue of the Braille Monitor contained a fairly detailed description of the meeting.
Included in the report was a reprint of an article that had been reviewed at the meeting--an article about questionable practices at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. I asked the NAC representatives whether they had knowledge of the allegations of misconduct at the school and what NAC intended to do about those allegations. Mr. Obremski and Mr. Hegedeos indicated that they had no prior knowledge of these allegations. Of course Dr. Robinson knew all about them. He said that, since there had been no criminal convictions, he believed the allegations of misbehavior were irrelevant.
I asked NAC to give the Federation a report of any investigation it decided to conduct of the policies and practices at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. Keep in mind that this meeting occurred on September 10, 2001. By the time the Braille Monitor article appeared in May of 2002, no report had been received about the Utah School. However, NAC accreditation of the school continued in effect. Apparently a re-accreditation had occurred in 2001 during the time that many of the allegations about the Utah School were being made.
Now a letter has come from the president of NAC dated October 14, 2002. In context this letter is nothing short of amazing. The letter comes well over a year after the September 10 meeting with NAC. Mr. Obremski attempts to shift the blame for the delay by arguing that the Federation had a responsibility to provide transcripts of the meeting (a thing the Federation has never promised to do), but of course in the intervening months he has not sent a note indicating that he had received no information from us. In one sense the attempt to explain the delay is characteristic of the rest of the communication. Whatever happens, it is always somebody else's fault.
The letter says that bad practices happen everywhere and that no system of accreditation can prevent them. One is left with the impression that the bad practices do not have an impact on the question of NAC accreditation. Mr. Obremski does not say that, as long as the paperwork is in order, poor practices may be tolerated. He even asserts that practices that are bad enough could (when repeated numerous times) cause a withdrawal of accreditation. However, one is left to wonder how bad is bad enough, and, although many self-serving statements are made about the value of accreditation, we do not hear about a system for evaluating allegations of misconduct. According to Dr. Lee Robinson, a criminal conviction must occur before allegations of misconduct are serious. Would that be enough for the withdrawal of accreditation? Mr. Obremski refers to sexual misbehavior, fraud in accounting practices, and mass killings in schools. The implication is that, if these things happen in accredited institutions, the accreditation body cannot be held accountable. Here in its entirety is Mr. Obremski's letter.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Steven Obremski]
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Impaired
Lakewood, Ohio
October 14, 2002
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland
Dear Mr. Maurer:
I am writing in response to your question regarding a NAC member organization, the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind (USDB), which you published in the May 2002 issue of the Braille Monitor. My delay in responding is due in part to my expectation of receiving transcripts from the September 10, 2001, meeting, which you agreed to send me, in order that I might obtain a list of action items regarding what was discussed. The following is my response to your article in the Monitor that I am also publishing in the upcoming issue of the Standard Bearer as a means of sharing this response with the NAC membership. [The Standard Bearer is the NAC in-house magazine.]
The National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired (NAC) exists to develop and apply standards related to the governance, administration, and provision of services by agencies and schools serving people who are blind and visually impaired. Agencies that choose to become accredited undergo a thorough self-study and onsite review conducted by teams of professionals in the field, including persons like myself who are blind. After an onsite review agencies are awarded varying levels of accreditation or are denied accreditation if they fail to satisfactorily meet the established standards.
There are numerous accrediting bodies in existence, from the Associations of Colleges and Schools, which evaluate functions and programs of both public and private schools; to the Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF), which evaluates a diverse group of agencies in the field of rehabilitation; to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which evaluates medical institutions. All of these accrediting organizations have a process similar to NAC's for evaluating policies, procedures, and services provided by an agency seeking accreditation. All award varying levels of accreditation depending upon compliance with the established standards.
Unfortunately, schools, hospitals, and other organizations providing services to the community experience critical incidents which may be unintentional or are violations committed by individuals, and which sometimes mandate legal action. Recent events that have drawn national attention include mass killings in public schools, unethical medical practices in hospitals, alleged sexual abuse by teachers, fraudulent and unethical practices by directors of national for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and, regrettably, incidents of alleged abuse by a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. The accreditation process, whether performed by JCAHO, CARF, or the school commission, is not an assurance against misbehavior of individual employees. I am sure that you would agree that this is a reasonable statement. It would be most unwise to misrepresent the value of accreditation by suggesting that accreditation is a shield against any misdeeds by individuals within an organization.
Many organizations that have experienced employee or volunteer criminal activity are accredited. Most public and private schools and most hospitals are accredited. In many cases an organization is accredited by more than one accrediting body. For example, the USDB, the agency that you referred to in our September 10, 2001, meeting and subsequently in the May issue of the NFB Braille Monitor, is accredited not only by NAC. The Northwest Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities (NASCU) and the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) have both evaluated the policies, procedures, and programs of the school and have recently awarded the school full accreditation.
Given all of the reported negligent or unlawful activities in accredited hospitals, schools, and rehabilitation agencies, how do these organizations remain open and accredited? And, given the allegations that were cited against the USDB, how can three different accrediting organizations continue to accredit them? The answer is found in the function of an accrediting entity.
When an agency is evaluated for accreditation, the agency's policies and practices are measured against established standards. The extent to which an agency meets a specific standard is gleaned from a review of pertinent documents; documentation of activities, both administrative and service-related; interviews with staff; contacts with collaborative organizations; and interviews with a representation of those served. If policies and practices are found to be acceptable, standards are either met or exceeded. If policies and practices are not met or not in place, the standard is not met. If there are numerous accounts of unmet standards or significant violations of consumers' rights, the organization is given a probationary status with a period of time for correcting the issue, or accreditation is withdrawn altogether.
The three organizations that accredit the USDB found that the school has acceptable policies and practices in place. Events such as the allegations of abuse at this school, as well as in other schools, hospitals, etc., are impossible to predict and, as evidenced by our society as a whole, are unfortunately unavoidable.
Contrary to your report in the Braille Monitor article, NAC's Commission on Accreditation and NAC's executive director were notified of the allegations of abuse at the USDB during their Onsite Review in late April of 2001.
[I interrupt the letter to say that this is a most curious sentence. Both Mr. Obremski and Mr. Hegedeos indicated during our meeting of September 10, 2001, that they had no prior knowledge of alleged abuses at the Utah School. Which piece of testimony are we to believe? Were the principal NAC officials aware of the allegations at the time they were accrediting the school in 2001? Did they accredit the school despite these allegations? Did they investigate before making the accreditation? Or did they ignore the reports? Were Mr. Obremski and Mr. Hegedeos forthright in September 2001, or were they pretending they didn't have the background in order to buy time to consider the matter? Many of these questions must remain a matter for speculation. Despite the length of Mr. Obremski's letter, he does not address such queries except in a most cursory and general way. But, back to Mr. Obremski's letter.]
At the same time the two other organizations that accredit the USDB were made aware of this situation. It was determined by NAC's Commission on Accreditation as well as NASCU and CEASD that this incident was handled appropriately by the school's administration, that policies and practices are in place to avoid the probability of this incident reoccurring, and that corrective action was taken. Subsequently the USDB was awarded reaccreditation by NAC and accreditation was maintained by both NASCU and CEASD.
A letter written on September 25, 2002, to Dr. Lee Robinson, superintendent of the USDB, from Dan R. Larsen, assistant attorney general of the State of Utah summarizes the circumstances related to the issue. He writes, "As counsel for defendants in all three of these cases, it is my opinion that the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind and its administrators acted appropriately in response to these incidents. The Sutton jury obviously agreed. Had the other two cases gone to trial, I anticipated a similar result. It is unfortunate that the reports in the media about the allegations in these lawsuits made it appear that school administrators were indifferent to the rights and safety of their students. These media reports ignore the hard work and dedication of the many professionals at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind who have dedicated their careers to educating and assisting disabled students. Anyone who actually visits the school and observes the classroom activities would be impressed with the facilities and staff. The negative media campaign pursued by plaintiffs' counsel in these lawsuits was not only untrue but was harmful to the students, the staff, and to those who may be in need of the services provided by the school. Now that the litigation has ended, I sincerely hope that the school can again focus on its primary mission, to provide an education to deaf and blind students in a safe environment."
Neither NAC, NFB, nor any other organization can predict, control, or avoid actions taken by an individual. The integrity of any given organization is based upon the policies and practices the organization has in place. It is this foundation that NAC fosters through established standards. Events occur, however, which are beyond any organization's control. To evaluate an entity only on the merit of such incidents does not reflect the principles of the organization as a whole in most cases. As stated earlier, the Utah School handled the critical matter mentioned above in an appropriate manner.
As we discussed at last year's meeting, NAC is moving forward with its plans to hold a summit in the near future to receive input and direction regarding the renewal of NAC and its services. There will be many blind people in attendance to present consumers' views. I am hopeful that you will participate.
Sincerely,
Steven Obremski
President, Board of Directors
With such arguments in mind, it is worth asking, what is the purpose of NAC? If its accreditation cannot assure proper practices, then what does it assure? Is the accreditation system created to serve as a shield for those prepared to tolerate shabby behavior or worse? Is NAC once again attempting to serve as the arbiter for the blind, deciding for us what is beneficial for us to have, even if we want something else?
Mr. Obremski's letter states, "It would be most unwise to misrepresent the value of accreditation by suggesting that accreditation is a shield against any misdeeds by individuals within an organization. Many organizations that have experienced employee or volunteer criminal activity are accredited." Such statements attempt to make a distinction between the actions of an organization and the actions of individuals serving as agents for the organization. How can an organization take an action unless the individuals who serve it act? Mr. Obremski suggests that the actions he finds laudatory are the actions of the school; those he finds reprehensible are not chargeable to the school but to the individuals at the school. Apparently he has never heard of the legal maxim "respondeat superior"--the principal is responsible for the actions of the principal's agent. A school cannot act except through the individuals who serve it.
Another letter from Mr. Obremski indicates that NAC is seeking to revive its position in the blindness field and improve its public image and prestige. Notice in this letter that once again the organized blind are relegated to one representative. It is plain from Mr. Obremski's letters that he intends to have scores of others present to discuss the value of NAC--many of them senior staff members of NAC-accredited agencies. NAC has not changed. It wants to dominate and control. It wants to plan for the blind what their lives shall be and what services will be good for them. In the midst of the rhetoric, NAC claims that its accreditation "has proven to be the preeminent management tool for organizations that provide quality services." Sometimes when reading NAC's high-flown, self-appreciative statements, it is hard to determine whether NAC officials meant them as a joke or they really believe them. Here are the pertinent portions of the letter of invitation to come to the NAC summit in Tampa in December of 2002.
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Impaired
Lakewood, Ohio
Mr. Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland
October 16, 2002
Dear Mr. Maurer:
On behalf of the NAC board of directors I invite you to attend a summit meeting on accreditation for agencies serving people who are blind or visually impaired. This meeting will be held on December 13, 2002, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Don Wells, director of the Duke University Certificate Program in Nonprofit Management, will facilitate this important meeting.
The following day, on December 14, 2002, NAC will continue with the biannual membership business meeting.
At this summit on the 13th, we are bringing together the NAC board of directors, NAC member agencies, and the top executives of national organizations in the field of services to people who are blind or visually impaired, in order to participate in the agenda concerning:
--The value of and need for specialized standards;
--Streamlining the accreditation process;
--The coordination of accrediting organizations, CARF, JCAHO, and SACS, with NAC; and
--Relationships between NAC and national consumer organizations.
In addition to leaders in the field of blindness, Dr. Brian Boon, president and CEO of the Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF), has accepted a special invitation to attend. Representatives of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) have also been invited.
All organizations are limited to having one representative in attendance. Please return your RSVP sheet in the envelope provided or by e-mail at your earliest convenience to Steven K. Hegedeos.
The detailed agenda for this summit and the NAC Biannual Business Membership Meeting will be sent in the near future.
The quality of specialized services for people who are blind or visually impaired is critical, and the peer-review process for accreditation has proven to be the pre-eminent management tool for organizations that provide quality services. Your participation in this conference is important for the future of specialized services to those whom we serve.
Thank you for your participation in the provision of specialized services to people who are blind and visually impaired. I look forward to our time together in Tampa.
Sincerely,
Steven Obremski
President, Board of Directors
Then there is the most recent missive from NAC's executive director. In view of what has been said and written about NAC, it is apparent that NAC's executive director is attempting to use dissembling language to achieve diplomatic objectives. He wants to portray NAC as willing to listen to the blind, which of course it is not. He wants to demonstrate chumminess and friendly discourse while at the same time he is forcing a discredited so-called standards organization down the throats of the blind. He thinks his chattiness will distract us from the real mission of NAC. However, pretending that NAC is fair or even-handed or willing to consider the views of the organized blind or a force for positive change in the blindness field will not make it so. NAC is what it has always been--a divisive, destructive, discredited attempt to shield those who cannot stand on their own. This is the most recent exchange of correspondence.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Steven Hegedeos]
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Impaired
Lakewood, Ohio
October 28, 2002
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland
Re: NAC Summit Meeting
Dear Dr. Maurer:
Thank you for your communications dated September 17 and October 3, 2002. Our communications with each other are valuable to me, and I appreciate the clarity that you practice.
This letter is a follow-up to my telephone message from last week, replying to your request for information about the upcoming NAC meeting. Mr. Steve Obremski said you, the president of a major organization, should receive advanced notice about the upcoming NAC meeting. The invitations to the NAC summit meeting set for December 13-14, 2002, have been sent, and I trust you have received yours by now. Your receptionist called today and asked for a faxed copy of the invitation. It has been faxed.
In your October 3rd letter you state that in the past NAC gave the impression that it prefers ". . .to do its business without the blind discovering what it is planning." I am sure that you have reasons based in history for saying that; however, I wish to assure you that it is not the preference nor the intent of the current NAC board or any of its officers nor employees to operate in such a manner. On the contrary, our aim is to solicit as much input as possible.
The summit meeting agenda will touch on the issue you laid on the table September 10, 2001. The letter from Steve Obremski to you and the NAC Newsletter being sent out this week acknowledge, privately and publicly, NFB's position regarding NAC.
While it is my belief that you and I do not disagree much about what needs to be done, I wish to communicate to you my feelings about how we should accomplish what needs to be done, based on the following premise:
The field of blindness and visual impairment rehabilitation and education needs credible specialized standards and an accreditation program for service providers. Anything less then a credible system should not be done. To be credible, such service standards and an accreditation program must be the responsibility of an independent entity. In our field special standards are needed to address issues concerning communication (including Braille), travel, activities of daily living, workplace and classroom modifications, access to new technology, and services for persons with other disabilities who also may be blind or visually impaired.
Toward this end I am working on and advocating the following long-range action plan.
* Firstly, securing funding for a national conference about specialized standards.
* Secondly, developing a plan for establishing specialized standards based on research findings.
* Thirdly, securing funding for research that will serve as the bases [sic] for specialized standards.
Support for such an action plan has been expressed by the U.S. government standards system referred to as ISO 9002, the VA, Emory University, Hopkins University, school accrediting bodies, CARF, and JCAHO. My personal hope is that NFB will participate in this process. One way of participating might be to house such activities in the NFB Research Building, which is a desirable location.
The summit on December 13th is being designed to set the course for the short-range action plan. The goal is to maintain and continuously improve specialized service standards that are implemented in a credible accreditation program.
I do not wish to feed into any acrimonious challenges of the past, however strongly the past adversities related to NFB and NAC might have affected our respective organizations. Based on my contacts with NAC-accredited agencies and participating in accreditation decisions, I can categorically testify to you that I have seen no evidence that the NAC accreditation process has damaged any service organization in delivering valuable services to people who are blind or visually impaired. On the contrary, there are many examples of the NAC accreditation promoting the improvement of service delivery.
I believe, however, that the acrimonious relationships that exist, not only between NFB and NAC, but in the field, is damaging efforts toward the elimination of barriers and disadvantages endured by people who are blind and visually impaired. There is an unacceptably high unemployment rate, a low level of representation and participation in the mainstream of our society, and ever-present indignations [sic] are suffered due to ignorance of the general public.
In your December 20, 2001, greeting, you mentioned that you suspect that your mind is made up about NAC. Since then your views seemed to be more solidly against NAC, which makes the prospects of reaching a short-term and a long-term action plan more difficult.
I wish to rekindle some thoughts from earlier conversations you and I have had regarding our beliefs and principles we live by. Whatever the final outcome of the NFB/NAC adversarial relationship will result in, education and enlightenment could be and should be part of the resolution of this and any problem. One's beliefs have to be shared to be of value.
I recently watched the news talk show "Crossfire," which caused me to reaffirm my own beliefs, and I wish to share that with you.
The attorney Johnny Corcoran [sic] was on the show last week promoting his book titled Justice. Even though the OJ Simpson circumstances are repulsive to me, the real world is what it is, and I can live with it.
However, Corcoran went on to promote his agenda of restitution for slavery in the U.S. This I cannot accept.
Corcoran said, "you have benefited from the labor of the slaves, and restitution is justified." I can accept this as partially true, but it is more completely true that all Americans, including African-Americans living in this country, have benefited from the slave labor of the past. Corcoran has certainly benefited. Restitution based on racial grounds is just as evil as slavery based on racial grounds. Where does it end? If restitution is justified, all Americans should pay.
The principle is that we should all participate. No one organization or one individual should claim to be the exclusive representative of a particular group of people. Everyone must have the opportunity to participate in processes. More to the point, service standards for organizations must be free from conflicts of interest in every possible manner. Both NAC and NFB should be part of the renaissance of specialized standards.
I am looking forward to your reply and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Hegedeos
Executive Director
November 6, 2002
Mr. Steven K. Hegedeos
Executive Director
National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired
Lakewood, Ohio
Dear Mr. Hegedeos:
I have received your letter of October 28, 2002, and I find it positively astonishing. Perhaps I have lost my capacity to communicate. The first time we met, I told you that NAC was destructive to the field of blindness, and I recommended that you avoid becoming embroiled in it. On each subsequent occasion when we have met, I have stated the same principle. Your letter implies that we were working jointly to revive NAC, which has never been the case.
Contrary to your assertion, NAC is not independent; it has never been independent; and it cannot be independent. It is controlled and dominated by the agencies that have created NAC for the purpose of establishing a place to hide their inadequacies--they want to use the name of accreditation as a shield. This is the way it is now, and it is the way that NAC has always been. If you insist on attempting to revive this discredited, destructive system, you will create the acrimony you tell me you want to avoid. I suggested to you a way to avoid it the first time we met.
You have listened to the blind with the same attention that previous NAC directors gave to the sentiment expressed. You have ignored what we told you, and you have insisted that the blind, who are the consumers of the services allegedly provided by the agencies you accredit, may have one representative in a gathering of scores. In other words, you offer the blind the same tokenism that your predecessors offered. I strongly suspect you will get the same result.
Sincerely,
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Barbara Cheadle]
Rhode Island Department of Education:
Cutting or Gutting Services to Blind Children?
by Barbara Cheadle
From the Editor: Barbara Cheadle is the president of the National Organization of Parents of Blind Children. The following article appeared in Volume 21, No. 2 of Future Reflections, the quarterly publication of the organization. Here it is:
Cutting or gutting services is the question uppermost in the minds of over 150 families of blind and visually impaired children in Rhode Island. So far no one is coming forward with any answers.
Many states across our nation (Rhode Island among them) are struggling with revenue shortfalls and other budget problems. A weakened economy has compelled several state governors to order across-the-board cuts in state government spending. In such circumstances it isn't uncommon for services to blind children to take a proportional hit. In some states this means budget cuts to the state-funded schools for the blind. In a few states (such as New Jersey) children's services provided by state-funded commissions for the blind suffer cutbacks as well.
None of this is pleasant, but neither is it unexpected, nor is it grossly unfair, providing that the programs had reasonable funding in the first place. This is not to say that parents and blind advocates should take such cuts meekly--only that cycles of fat times and lean times are normal, and all must work together to minimize the impact of the lean times. But making cuts in a program is one thing; gutting it is another. A trimmed rose bush can grow back; a gutted fish is a goner.
Rhode Island has neither a state school for the blind nor a commission for the blind charged with the responsibility for the education of blind children, but it does have a statewide program for children with visual impairments--the Vision Services Program (VSP). The VSP, in existence since the mid to late sixties, is financially administered through the Rhode Island Department of Education at the Rhode Island School for the Deaf. The program has provided direct educational itinerant teaching services to blind and visually impaired children (not to mention supplying specialized books, equipment, etc.) to all but six of the state's thirty-eight school districts. Beginning in 2000, the program also provided orientation and mobility services. In addition to these direct services, VSP has funded summer programs for eligible blind and visually impaired children statewide, continuing education training for specialized professionals, and other special programs for the entire state.
Never a completely independent department with its own budget and dedicated administration, the VSP program office is currently located on the campus of the Rhode Island School for the Deaf, and, as of September of 2001, it is administered by the superintendent of the Rhode Island School for the Deaf. Despite these limitations there has been much to commend the Rhode Island Vision Services Program since its inception.
This is especially to the state's credit since the Vision Services Program started from almost nothing at all. Prior to the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA), Rhode Island's education plan for blind children was simple: pay out-of-state tuition and send the kids to the Perkins School for the Blind in Massachusetts. At the peak of the program the Rhode Island Blind Beneficiary Fund budgeted about $1.5 million for this purpose.
The transition from an out-of-state residential education plan to a state program which provides support for blind children to remain in their local public schools has been a long one, with some troubling implications for funding for services to blind children. As Rhode Island children moved out of the Perkins School for the Blind (or other out-of-state residential programs), the money formerly budgeted for that tuition disappeared into other programs within the Department of Education. More and more of Rhode Island's blind children were remaining in the state to be educated, but proportionally less and less funding was allocated to the Vision Services Program, which provided specialized services to these children.
By 1999 those with a special interest in the education of blind children were becoming alarmed at the rapid bleeding away of resources. No systematic assessment of the needs and cost of services to blind children seemed to be in place. In 1999 concerned professionals in the VSP program went before the state legislature to ask that the $77,000 freed up that year by two children exiting the out-of-state tuition program be returned to the VSP budget and that a full-time position be added to the program. The efforts were partially successful for that year, but it was only a temporary fix.
In the fall of 2001 the budget axe was poised again for the most staggering cut yet. But this time a new factor had entered the picture. Parents of blind children, led by Elizabeth Frampton and Paul Loberti, mobilized. Unwilling to sit by silently while essential service after essential service was stripped away, parents organized into the Rhode Island Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children (RIPBVIC) so that they could collectively advocate to keep the VSP program and funding for that program intact. They wrote letters, made phone calls, dashed off e-mails, buttonholed state legislators, and finally got the ear of one newspaper reporter.
The following article, which appeared in the Providence Journal-Bulletin, of Sunday, July 7, 2002, picks up the story at this point. Following the newspaper article are copies of letters by Elizabeth Frampton and Paul Loberti, which bring the saga up to date as of August 2002. We begin with the report from the Providence Journal-Bulletin:
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Aria Mia Loberti]
A Young Girl
Is the One to Listen to
by Bob Kerr
Aria Mia Loberti is a charming, articulate soon-to-be fourth grader with a musical name and a deep appreciation for the people who help her to be all she can be. Sitting with her parents in a restaurant at the Providence Marriott, holding the latest book she is reading, she explains that these people, at her school in Johnston, are important people, and they make her life better.
She suffers from an eye disorder that lets her see in dim indoor light but leaves her blind in the bright out-of-doors. She seems lucky, in a way, because she has parents who insist that she get the things she needs to be just another very bright girl in elementary school. And she lives in Johnston, where school officials have been very understanding and very helpful. But she is part of a small, seldom heard constituency in Rhode Island that now realizes it has to speak up for itself, and it is having no easy time getting simple answers to simple questions.
"We want to be part of the solution," says Paul Loberti, Aria Mia's father. "The only real advocacy we have is the vision educators themselves. They're the only ones who testified on our behalf."
What happened to Loberti, his wife, Audrey Loberti, their daughter, and other families with children who are blind or visually impaired got little if any notice in the recent debate over cuts in the Rhode Island state budget. There are perhaps 150 children in the state who are blind or suffer from impaired vision and require special assistance at school. They are not a large group, and, until now, they have not been organized. And they have not been heard.
But they have been hit hard, and some of their parents wonder why they are finding it so difficult to convince state officials that, with the right kind of assistance, a child who can't see can often do darned near everything else.
"You come away with the feeling that these kids are considered a disposable part of the population," says Kathleen Williams, whose three-year-old son is visually impaired. "People seem to think that ‘blind’ means kids can't learn."
Williams met last week with the Lobertis and other members of Rhode Island Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children--the group they've formed to push for the services their children need in order to have the same kind of education that other children have. They have all received a rude wake-up call. They have learned that things they'd thought were in place and would always be in place are not.
The warning signs first appeared last October, when some of the parents were called to a meeting at the Rhode Island School for the Deaf to learn about cuts in the budget for the education of their children.
They started telephoning Peter McWalters, the state's commissioner of education. Paul Loberti says there were twenty-six calls--maybe more--expressing the parents' concerns. They finally had a meeting but came away without any sense of support. State education officials, say the parents, put the blame for the cuts on the governor's office. The parents don't really care who made the cuts. They are just amazed at how hostile their reception has been when they have made what they consider a reasonable appeal on behalf of children who can't see.
"The problem is that the people who are making the decisions are the least equipped to do it," says Elizabeth Frampton, the president of the parents' group. They say they weren't even able to get the exact figures on how much was being cut from the budget for the education of blind and visually impaired children. They had to do the math themselves and came up with the startling and disturbing fact that the budget had gone from $469,000 to $279,000. That's small potatoes amid the millions and millions of dollars involved in the state-budget battle. But for the blind children and their families it probably means the end of summer camps and training in Braille and life skills.
The parents want independence for their children--the ability to work and compete. Right now they're not sure what the state wants for the children. There are federal guidelines for what schools should provide for blind and visually impaired students; the parents believe those guidelines should be followed, but they aren't really sure that they will be. As Paul Loberti points out, they all want to be part of the solution, but they feel they are being shut out.
They did appear before the House Finance Committee to make their case, and the Rhode Island House of Representatives did approve a resolution creating a commission to develop a comprehensive education system for these students. It is, perhaps, a beginning.
Personally, I'd recommend some meetings with Aria Mia Loberti. Set up meetings for her with the governor, the commissioner of education, the leaders of the legislature. Let her tell them what these educational services mean to a very smart kid who sees no limits on what she can do. They'd understand. They really would.
Future Reflections Editor's Note: If only it were that easy! Shortly after the publication of this article, Elizabeth Frampton and Paul Loberti, on behalf of the Rhode Island Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children (RIPBVIC), sent a letter to the Rhode Island Commissioner of Education, Peter McWalters, reviewing specific concerns and asking cogent questions. Copies of the letter along with a short update memo from Paul Loberti were circulated to members of the RIPBVIC. The letter and memo are reprinted below. That was in July.
As of September parents were still waiting--waiting to hear if any of the budget would be restored, waiting for answers from the commissioner, and waiting to hear about appointments to the commission established by the Rhode Island General Assembly to study the problem.
One final observation: although the immediate educational situation for many of Rhode Island's blind children is bleak, the parents I have interviewed from Rhode Island--Paul Loberti and Elizabeth Frampton--are determined to stay the course. They have displayed a remarkable combination of patience, courtesy, determination, good will, and tenacity. The final chapter on services to blind children in Rhode Island hasn't been written yet. You can count on it!
Here now, without further comment, are reprints of the letter to Commissioner McWalters and the July update memo from Paul Loberti:
[PHOTO/CAPTION: J.W. Frampton]
Rhode Island Parents
of Blind and Visually Impaired Children
July 15, 2002
Dear Commissioner McWalters:
We are writing to you today to ask to be part of the solution to deliver effective, necessary services for blind and visually impaired children in Rhode Island.
That said, we are confused by the tensions between the Department of Education and advocates for blind and visually impaired children. While we cannot compromise our principles, we do recognize that, to become part of the solution of current problems, we must all put aside our differences and move ahead in the best interest of serving our children. We are confident that you would agree with this approach.
As a result of: 1) the recent extreme state budget cuts to the Department of Education's vision program, 2) the subsequent June 2002 termination of contracted employees to provide vision services to children in Rhode Island, 3) the elimination of line items in the vision budget pertaining to supplies and equipment for blind and visually impaired children, 4) the lack of resources of the present state vision work force to meet the needs of blind and visually impaired children in Rhode Island, and 5) the fact that there is no dedicated plan of which we are aware to work with local towns and cities effectively to allow them to realize what has transpired, as well as to address the implications of the aforementioned situation--as a result of these things--we seek an amicable solution that we can be a part of.
We realize that as a group of concerned parents we have been assertive in our requests to you and your staff. We believe, however, that we have done this professionally and courteously. As a result of our deep concern and belief that the vision education program may be nearing extinction in the state of Rhode Island, again we exert our responsibility as parents and ask that you kindly respond to this letter by answering the following questions:
1) What efforts have been made to notify local towns and cities about the crisis associated with the termination of education services for blind and visually impaired children in Rhode Island?
2) What is the Department of Education's formal stance on coordinating these services for our children? For example, should another entity in state government be responsible for the implementation, coordination, and evaluation of services?
3) Have federal grantors been notified of the documented interruption of services associated with this population--many under the umbrella of IDEA, 504, and Title IX?
4) Due to the budget cuts, how can the state adequately meet the legal requirements associated with state laws and regulations to provide an appropriate, free education for this population?
5) At present we have identified approximately twenty children with needs that cannot be met in the current financial crisis. Our question is, if these twenty children are sent to Perkins [School for the Blind] at a cost estimated at $130,000 to $250,000 per year/per student, where will the funds come from, and will this affect the current opinion of state leaders about our ability to provide adequate services for these children in-state?
We sincerely hope that you will respond to our inquiries in a timely manner. Many of the questions above have been the source of great debate and concern among the parents in our network. We would greatly appreciate your kind and considerate attention to this matter, because many blind and visually impaired children are counting on you. Please send your response to Rhode Island Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children, Old Wrentham Road, Cumberland, Rhode Island.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Frampton, President, RIPBVIC
Paul G. Loberti, Vice President, RIPBVIC
Rhode Island Parents
of Blind and Visually Impaired Children
July 20, 2002
Dear Supporter of Rhode Island Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children:
I hope you are well. Today I am writing to keep you informed of the events that have transpired within the last two months regarding the provision of services to blind and visually impaired children in Rhode Island.
We as parents are completely and utterly shocked by the concerted destruction of state services for our children. This year we watched as the state budget for this program was essentially dismantled at the Department of Education. We continue to seek answers as to how and why this happened but quite honestly have not received any official word.
Our organization wanted you to receive a copy of the most recent letter sent to Commissioner McWalters. We sincerely hope that the appropriate individuals will rectify the problem, but at present the situation is grim. We ask that you take an active role in assisting us in resolving this crisis. Please carefully review this letter and call me at ___ or Elizabeth Frampton, President of RI Parents of Blind and Visually Impaired Children, at ___, if you have further questions.
Currently, blind and visually impaired children who typically get services for the summer have been told they will no longer get these services. The fall is coming soon, and parents are uncertain whether local governments will have the time and resources to accommodate our children's needs. Keep in mind that more than half of the vision educators were terminated as a result of the state mandate to eliminate contract employees.
The current state-funded vision educators are at a complete loss to know how they will provide services for the children who desperately need them. In addition, line items in the current budget have been slashed, and fundamental resources to support the education of our children are no longer available.
We urge you to help us restore the necessary elements to provide services to blind and visually impaired children in our state. Thank you for your continued support of blind and visually impaired children. They need you now more than ever!
Sincerely,
Paul G. Loberti, Vice President, RIPBVIC
There you have the article that appears in the current issue of Future Reflections. The school year is now well started, and some progress has been made in naming members to the commission to look into Rhode Island's handling of the education of blind and visually impaired students. Unfortunately, one of the most influential officials in this struggle is Dr. Reginald Redding, the superintendent of the Rhode Island School for the Deaf and the man with administrative responsibility for the vision services program. One always worries when the educational program for blind students is controlled by an authority with a clearly different interest, like deafness or mental retardation. Couple this cause for anxiety with the rumor that the commissioner of education and Dr. Redding are close personal friends and the fact that the commissioner testified to protect the budget for the School for the Deaf but did not do so for the services to blind students, and it's clear why the Rhode Island parents are frustrated and skeptical. On August 15, 2002, Dr. Redding sent a memo to public school superintendents regarding the Statewide Program for Children with Visual Impairments. The lack of useful or constructive information tells its own tale. Here is the memo:
Rhode Island School for the Deaf
Memorandum
Date: August 15, 2002
To: School Superintendent
From: Reginald L. Redding, Ph.D., Director/Superintendent
Re: Statewide Program for Children with Visual Impairments
As many of you know, the Statewide Program for Vision Services has had its budget reduced. The concerns relative to this program have been so great that the Rhode Island General Assembly has established a commission to be chaired by Representative Eileen Naughton of Warwick to examine these services and report back to the Legislature by March 2003.
As a result of the current budget constraints, there have been and will continue to be limits on the extent to which this program can meet the needs of eligible children throughout our state. As a result, there may [be] instances where the Local Education Agency (LEA) may have to fully provide services or augment services that cannot be provided through the statewide program. At this time it is difficult to assess the extent to which this will occur. It is hoped that the work of the Legislative Commission will result in a thorough assessment of services to children with vision impairments in Rhode Island and recommendations for how to make those services as efficient and effective as possible.
If you have any questions, please contact me at ___.
cc: Directors of Special Education
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
There it is. The parents of Rhode Island's blind students and the blind adults who care about them have our work cut out for us. The NFB will continue to provide support and advice, and we will keep readers informed about how this struggle goes.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Jim Willows]
Victory for the Blind in California Rehabilitation
by Jim Willows
From the Editor: Jim Willows is past president of the NFB of California. He has worked hard to bring about the transformation in the prospects for blind Californians that he describes in the following article. This is what he says:
September 29, 2002, was a great day for the blind of California. On that day Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 105, which created a division for the blind with line authority over supervisors, counselors, and counselor‑teachers serving blind and visually impaired clients within the California Department of Rehabilitation. All members of this division, from its director to supervisors and counselors in the field, will be required to have expertise in serving, rehabilitating, and placing blind clients.
The signing of this legislation was the culmination of four years of effort by the National Federation of the Blind of California and more than thirty other organizations, agencies, and individuals providing services to the blind of California. Our new division for the blind provides the first opportunity California has taken to establish a meaningful separate, identifiable entity responsible for providing all rehabilitation services to the blind of the state.
How bad is California rehab? In the fall of 1998, as president of the NFB of California, I learned a shocking fact from a survey done by researchers at Mississippi State University. The MSU report stated that the California Department of Rehabilitation was forty-eighth of forty-eight states responding to their survey in placements in meaningful employment per counselor of blind and visually impaired clients. We knew that California rehab was not putting many blind clients to work, but we had had no idea that things were this bad. Immediate action was needed.
At the time California was in the midst of a hot race for governor between Democrat Gray Davis and Republican Richard Lundgren. I was joined by Catherine Skivers, president of the California Council of the Blind, Anita Aaron, director of the Rose Resnick Lighthouse for the Blind in San Francisco, Bob Ralls, president of the Foundation for the Junior Blind in Los Angeles, Dr. LaDonna Ringering, director of the Center for the Partially Sighted in Santa Monica, Gil Johnson, director of the San Francisco office of the American Foundation for the Blind, and Bryan Bashin, executive director of the Society for the Blind in Sacramento and a board member of the NFB of California. This group contacted both the Davis and Lundgren campaign staffs. We heard nothing from the Lundgren staff, but Mr. Tal Finney, a prominent member of the Davis campaign, agreed to meet with us. Tal later became one of Governor Davis's chief policy advisors.
Mr. Finney met with us in late October, just a few days before the gubernatorial election. I believe he came to convince us that Gray Davis should be our candidate, but he left with a new appreciation of the high unemployment record for blind people and of how little the Department of Rehabilitation had done for us.
Of course Gray Davis was elected, and we went into strategy-planning mode. I wanted to be sure that membership in this loose group would not violate any coalition policies of the Federation. I called to brief President Maurer on the California situation. I asked what he thought of the NFB of California's joining other groups of and for the blind to improve our rehab situation. He reminded me that the Federation opposes broad, long-lasting coalitions. He said that an alliance of blind organizations formed to solve a specific problem was in line with Federation policy and cited Dr. Jernigan's participation in creating the Joint Organizational Effort (JOE) Committee.
Our next step was to call a blindness summit, held in Los Angeles in mid‑January of 1999. In addition to the seven organizations listed above, some thirty other organizations for the blind and several blind individuals were interested in putting blind people to work and came to our meeting. The NFB of California was represented by Don Burns, Nancy Burns, Nick Medina, Maria Morais, and Jim Willows.
At this meeting we agreed on the name Blind Alliance for Rehabilitation Change (BARC), and we made the decision to introduce legislation to establish a commission for the blind in California. As we went forward, we found that old-timers in the legislature and in state government recognized the historic significance of having virtually the entire blind community come together in BARC. This realization was a great help in achieving our ultimate victory in a state that had never before considered forming a separate agency for rehabilitation of the blind.
At this point Bryan Bashin calculated that, at the department's current rate of placing blind clients, even if no new clients were added to the caseload, it would take over six hundred years to find jobs for all of the current clients--a bit of whimsy, perhaps, but it grabbed the attention of some legislators.
At this time a series of four articles was published in the Sacramento Bee. The author quoted blind clients of the Department of Rehabilitation and several leaders of the blind in California. All described, and the articles emphasized, the department's lamentable state of placement efforts for blind clients. Soon after Governor Davis was sworn in (January 1999), we began hearing that he would not support creation of any new boards or commissions in state government. He wanted to evaluate the usefulness of existing boards and commissions first. Tal Finney confirmed this policy when we met with him in the governor's office. It was further confirmed when we met with Grantland Johnson, Davis's secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency containing the California Department of Rehabilitation.
We were unable to find a legislator to author our commission bill, largely because of the governor's opposition to new commissions. However, we made very good use of the 1999‑2000 legislative session. BARC adopted a three-pronged plan of operation for this period. The first involved collection of data and reports supporting our position. The second was a huge education campaign in the legislature and within various departments of state government. Our final prong provided advice to the governor in his choice of the new director of rehabilitation.
In the data-collection effort we met with Gilbert (Doc) Williams, commissioner of Region IX of the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). Doc and his staff were helpful in providing comparative data between California and several states with commissions for the blind in placement of blind clients in quality jobs. This group also put together a large database of reports from many sources favoring commissions for the blind over serving the blind within umbrella agencies as we have always done in California. A large number of us worked to educate legislators and administrators about the deplorable level to which California rehab had sunk and about the need for a separate and identifiable structure for rehabilitation of blind people in California.
Don Burns, our NFB of California legislative representative, and Dan Kysor, who holds a similar position with the California Council of the Blind (CCB), took the lead in these educational efforts. We issued several press releases throughout the state telling of the rehab problems of blind clients and of what BARC proposed to do about solving these problems. As for the director of rehabilitation position, BARC had been approached by all the leading applicants to ask for our support. As president of the NFB of California, I worked with Cathy Skivers, president of the CCB, in interviewing these candidates. We concluded that Dr. Catherine Campisi should have our support, and the BARC Steering Committee concurred. Catherine Campisi turned out to be a good choice, as later events would verify. Dr. Campisi was appointed by Governor Davis to head the California Department of Rehabilitation.
Early in this preparation period we received heartening news. The Nebraska legislature had just passed and their governor had signed a commission for the blind bill. Shortly after the commission became operational, we contacted Barbara Walker, Michael Floyd, and Carlos Serván, leaders of the NFB of Nebraska, to ask questions about how they succeeded in getting their bill passed. Michael and Carlos came to California to meet with us. They reviewed many of the details involved in their efforts. They said that the Nebraska commission was the result of a cooperative effort among several organizations of and for the blind in their state. We concluded that the Nebraska experience indicated we were on the right track.
As the 2001‑2002 legislative session approached, we concentrated on finding an author for our commission bill. Our work of the past two years bore fruit. Senator John Burton, a Democrat representing the San Francisco area, agreed to carry our bill. Our legislation was introduced early in the session as Senate Bill 105. Senator Burton is a longtime champion of the rights of disabled individuals. As president pro tempore of our state senate, he is obviously a man of influence. Many long-term Federationists will remember John Burton's brother, the late Congressman Phil Burton of San Francisco. Congressman Burton worked with the NFB on many of our bills during his time in Congress.
SB 105 was quickly opposed by three cross‑disability organizations. This opposition was not unexpected because of these groups' ideological opposition to categorical services for the blind. This opposition was serious in that Senator Burton had long championed the rights of all disabled people. He asked that we try to work out some agreement with the opposition. We met with them, but they were adamant in their position.
Two events of wide-ranging impact in California also affected SB 105. These were the rate gouging of California by energy suppliers and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Both contributed to the huge budget deficit in our state. California had gone from significant budget surpluses to large deficits in a few months. Senator Burton realized that even the minor costs of establishing our commission for the blind would kill the bill in the current poor fiscal climate. He proposed making SB 105 a two-year bill to see what we could do in the next half of the legislative session. We agreed to this.
As the year 2002 and the second half of the legislative session dawned, California's fiscal situation was no better. In fact the costs of Homeland Security had made it more bleak. Senator Burton's staff sent us amendments to the bill proposed by Dr. Campisi. She proposed replacing the commission for the blind with a division for the blind within her Department of Rehabilitation. Her proposed division would incorporate services for the blind within the department's central office only. There would be no line authority over counselors and counselor‑teachers for the blind in the field offices.
We in BARC had already agreed among ourselves that, considering the current fiscal situation, a reasonable fall-back position would be a division for the blind within the department, but that we could not abandon our position that line authority over the field staff working with blind clients must be included in the statutes resulting from SB 105. We met many times with Dr. Campisi and department staff along with Diane Cumming of Senator Burton's staff. Finally Dr. Campisi and her staff agreed to our line-authority position and agreed to declare to the governor and the California Department of Finance that line authority would be an absorbable cost for the department. These were the magic words that assured the passage of SB 105, as amended.
With this agreement with Dr. Campisi, all opposition to the bill was dropped. The bill passed both senate committees and the senate with no dissenting votes. It did the same in the California assembly. The hearing rooms were packed with blind people at all of these committee hearings. Again, Don Burns, Dan Kysor, and others played a large role in educating members of both the senate and assembly. Members of the governor's staff assured us that Governor Davis would sign the bill. However, until we got the word that SB 105 had become law on September 29, we were still edgy.
Dr. Catherine Campisi worked with us in a fine spirit of cooperation in developing the final language of SB 105. I believe that we acted wisely in supporting her as director of rehabilitation. Dr. Joanne Wilson and Dr. Fredric Schroeder attended our California convention the last weekend of October in 2002. Dr. Campisi was also present at that time. Wilson and Schroeder met with Campisi on the evening of the 25th. They later declared at a convention session that they believed Dr. Campisi would work with us in good faith toward a successful implementation of our division for the blind. They said they believed she was truly consumer oriented.
Dr. Campisi is at work in implementing a division for the blind, which will come into being on July 1, 2003. As a longtime member of the Department's Advisory Committee on Services for the Blind, I attended a meeting of this committee on October 10 and 11, 2002. Dr. Campisi reported good progress in the implementation process. Many other BARC people are also members of this advisory committee. This committee, which was made a statutory committee by SB 105, will probably, along with BARC, oversee the implementation efforts.
I believe the BARC concept worked for us in California in passing this historic legislation. California is a very large state. We needed the talent and people-power provided by the many organizations and individuals in BARC. The impact of a fragmented community coming together for a single purpose helped greatly in the legislature, in state government offices, and among possible foes in the broader disability community. I also believe that the NFB of California gained as an organization from our BARC membership. We made contacts and friends through BARC. I believe our organization gained in respect from all of the blindness community in California. I also believe we gained new respect in the state legislature and in state offices. Could we have done this without BARC? Yes, but at a much slower pace. Would the BARC concept work for other Federation affiliates? Only you, the officers and members of these affiliates, can answer this question. I will be happy to help if any of you choose to ask this question.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: The United States Capitol]
What to Do in Washington, D.C.
by Sandy Halverson
From the Editor: For a number of years now Sandy Halverson and her efficient volunteer staff have handled the collection and organization of the information Federationists gather during our annual Washington Seminar. Now that Sandy and her husband John have returned to the Greater Washington area, we asked her to gather information about fun things to do in the nation's capital while we are in town during the first week of February and not actually in meetings with members of our congressional delegations. This is what she offers:
At the time of this writing, many of us are making plane and hotel reservations for our upcoming Washington Seminar. Some of us come to our nation's capital a day or two early because of cheaper air fares, or we find that we have blocks of time during the week which our congressional appointment scheduling personnel cannot fill. This sample of museum information is offered to give seminar attendees an opportunity to experience some of our nation's history while we are creating a bit of our own.
The Congressional Special Services Office (CSSO), located in the Capitol, has Braille maps of the tourist areas of Washington. I'm not sure how much of the Mall is covered, but I am told much is included.
This office also has a package of Braille and large-print Capitol-related materials and an audiotape of the public Capitol tour. A table‑top relief map showing the area from the Library of Congress to Union Station, including the Capitol Hill area and the Mall, is located at the CSSO in the crypt of the Capitol--appointments are required to reach the office. Identical maps can be examined inside the South Capitol entrance of the Rayburn Building, ground floor, and outside the Disbursement Office on the first floor of the Hart Building.
Blind people can of course take the usual public tour, or, if the CSSO is contacted in advance, blind visitors can have a more private tour, which includes aural descriptions of paintings as well as an opportunity to touch some of the statues. The office requests as much advanced notice as possible for scheduling special tours. The public tour takes approximately one hour.
Since September 11, access to the Capitol itself has been greatly restricted. Although a valid picture identification is sufficient to enter any of the Congressional office buildings, visiting the Capitol now requires a visitor's pass or gallery pass. These are best obtained from a member of Congress or senator's office. You can contact the CSSO at (202) 224-4048.
Yasmin Reyazuddin, one of our Maryland Federationists, works as a volunteer information specialist at the Smithsonian Institution. She assures us that, if requested, tour guides can show blind visitors tactile reproductions of some items in the museum collections. The National Museum of African Art introduces visitors to native artifacts found in African cultures. Although the National Air and Space Museum has a number of inaccessible displays, it also now boasts a number of others that are designed for tactile exploration. The National Museum of American History is always a popular tourist attraction, and right next door is the National Museum of Natural History with plenty of exhibits to investigate. The Arts and Industries Building is adjacent to the Smithsonian Castle, the first of the Institution's buildings