WEBMASTER NOTE: This copy of the Braille Spectator is being made available due to a scanned copy of a print version of the publication. The conversion process may of introduced spelling and formatting issues. In an attempt to prepare the document for the web, Non printable characters were removed and tags were added to make the document accessibly compliant.
MARY FREEMAN, Editor
P. O. Box 4422
Baltimore, Maryland 21223
MARCH 1982
VOLUME VI, NUMBER 1
Alfred Maneki
9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, MD 21045
THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, INC.
MARY FREEMAN, Editor
P. o. Box 4422
Baltimore, Maryland 21223
(301) 298-4234
ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
Marc Maurer
Willard Freeman
READER (Cassette Version): Connie McCraw
ORGANIZATIONAL OFFICERS:
WILLIE THOMPSON, President
3435 Lynne Haven Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21207 (301) 521-3107
JIM OMVIG, First Vice President
TED MCKEAN, Second Vice President
LLOYD RASMUSSEN, Secretary
AL MANEKI, Treasurer
9736 Basket Ring Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
The Braille Spectator is published quarterly as a newsletter to members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland and others who share an interest in the work of this organization. The recorded edition, available on cassettes, can be obtained from the editor upon request.
Changes of address and additions to the circulation list should be sent to the editor. Address all news items, articles, and letters to the editor.
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK
Willie Thompson
I would like to begin this report by expressing my sincere gratitude for all the hard work that the members of our fine affiliate have done during these past few months. Although dealing with legislative matters is not the only area we work hard in, it is certainly one of the more time-consuming and exhausting tasks we undertake each year. For those of us who may think that our legislation will never pass, you can rest assured that this year's session in the Legislature was a progressive one. Even though our efforts to obtain a separate agency for services to the blind will not be a reality this year, I firmly believe that the time is not far off. I believe that we have put our State Legislators in the position of coming to grips with the fact that services to the blind adult population in this state are not worth the taxpayers' money, and that they must do something to remedy this despicable situation. Well, enough on this matter since I am sure you will find more extensive reports elsewhere in this newsletter.
Another area which requires a lot of time and hard work is that of fundraising- raising money for our Local Chapters, State Affiliate and National Movement. At this time many of our chapters are engaged in a variety of fundraising projects, and you will soon be hearing about a project for the entire State to work on together. It may seem that we spend much too much time talking and working on replenishing our treasuries, but by now all of us have a clear picture of how this Movement of ours can and will be funded--by us, you and me.
And in talking about our Movement, we should all be thinking about the upcoming Convention in Minneapolis. I hope that Maryland, and am sure that we can, be number one in the number of attendees at our National Convention. So please let me know if you need assistance, and we will help all that we can. In this same light, our State Convention is not far off, and plans are now underway to make this our most successful convention ever. You will be hearing more about this matter in the next issue of the "Spectator", as well as details of our spring board meeting.
With this, I will end my report by again thanking the great Federationists we have in Maryland.
LEGISLATIVE STRIDES
Marc Maurer
It began with a bang not a whimper; Federationists stood firm to the task; our 1982
Legislative Program was underway. But, there was a difference. That difference is in the spirit of Federationists and in our method of doing business. The difference brought results.
Again this year, the principle focus of our legislative effort was the establishment of an identifiable agency for the blind. Although Blind Industries and Services of Maryland does a superb job with the resources available to it, overall services to the blind in Maryland are quite poor. The reason for this inadequacy is simple and easy to see. The structure of programs for the blind is so unwieldy that inefficiency is the norm. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, in an effort to fill an urgent and compelling need, provides some rehabilitation training. In addition, it offers some opportunity for employment. The Maryland Rehabilitation Center, part of the education department, offers evaluation. If any blind person has ever benefitted from this service, the fact has not been disclosed. The Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation, also a part of the education department, declares that it provides rehabilitation. However, the rehabilitation it provides is not geared to the needs of the blind. A counselor at the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is supposed to offer rehabilitation to people with neurological difficulties, people who are nonambulatory, people who are deaf, those with fatal or debilitating diseases, the mentally and emotionally unbalanced, and the blind. For many clients, the solutions to the problems they face are simple. For some seeking rehabilitation, medical treatment may be helpful. If the condition cannot be treated medically, a prosthetic device or a substitute mechanism may be the solution. The most obvious example is the wheelchair.
The problem faced by the blind fits into none of these categories. A special aid may be helpful, but it is peripheral to the main problem. Medical treatment cannot solve the problem of blindness. Training in the special techniques used by the blind is essential. This training must include a sound philosophical basis of encouragement for the blind. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has never been able to provide this training for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t have people who are specialists and who can devote the time necessary for this training. All counselors are supposed to counsel all disabled. This means that no counselor can devote the time that’s necessary for a thorough understanding of the problems faced by the blind. Second, the structure of the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ensures that this training program cannot be established. This is so because the special needs of an identifiable group, the blind, cannot be isolated with the rehabilitation process. The structure is all encompassing. Its programs are supposed to serve the handicapped. Rehabilitative training is given to people who are former criminal offenders, former drug abusers, alcoholics, paraplegics, or blind. If the rehabilitative training fails to meet the needs of the tiny minority which is blind, this is unfortunate. However, the majority is not blind. Consequently, no program is established to meet the needs of blind clients.
Rehabilitation programs which are supposed to help the blind include help for so many other people that the blind get left out. At the same time, programs which should be included in this hodge podge are not. In Maryland both ways to ruin a rehabilitation program are found. There is the problem of overinclusion and under-inclusion. The program for helping the blind at DVR includes the alcoholics, the mentally retarded and the rest. There's too much there, the blind should be separated. However, it doesn't include library services, an orientation training program, or special placement service for the blind. These should be included.
This is what we told the legislature. First, we had a Legislative Banquet. Throughout the day before our banquet more than fifty members navigated the halls and met with our Delegates and Senators in Annapolis. Our reception was warm, but Delegates and Senators expressed reservations about establishing a separate agency for the blind. That night at our banquet, we told a graphic story. We explained in detail how this bill would help.
In the weeks that followed our Legislative Day in Annapolis hundreds of letters were written to our Delegates and Senators. The people at the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation told the Legislature that we were naive, that our bill would cost money, but would not provide better service. Legislators told us that we must get together and settle our differences. They said the blind could not expect favorable treatment until we all agreed on the proper solution to this problem of services to the blind. Then the fireworks began. We the blind explained to the Legislature that we were sick and tired of this shabby treatment. We told the Legislature that they made programs for the blind the way they were and that they were responsible for the shameful and disreputable state of rehabilitation in Maryland. We told the Legislature that the blind already agreed on what should be done and that those who were fighting us were the agency directors who were providing this disgraceful service. The
Legislators designed these terrible programs, encouraged program administrators to make false and misleading claims about their own programs and then refused to do anything about the chaos which resulted. The Legislators who refused to accept responsibility got precisely the kind of unresponsive state government they deserve.
The results of this legislative effort are not a newly created, separate agency for the blind. However, the Senate Finance Committee expressed a clear interest in studying the quality of services for the blind in Maryland. This is a victory for us.
The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has no service program for the blind. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland has a good service program and wonderfully illustrative record. When Ralph Sanders, a member of the National Federation of the Blind, assumed the Presidency of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland that agency was on the edge of financial ruin. Today, Blind Indus- tries has the best program for the blind in the state, has increased its budget several fold through increased productivity and increased output and has established a policy to pay blind workers in accordance with the minimum wage and a bonus incentive plan. The only other program for the blind in Maryland is that established by the National Federation of the Blind at our National Center.
What has DVR to offer which can compare with the programs of the National
Federation of the Blind and Blind Industries and Services of Maryland? Nothing. The work ahead is clear. We must use our time and our energy to show these Senators the real potential that can be achieved by the blind. We can do it, and we will do it. Plan for the summer. The work is to be done. The past was one of frustration. The future holds great possibilities.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter was written immediately following the House of Delegates hearing on HB554, a bill to Consolidate Services for the Blind in Maryland.
As may be expected, officials from the School for the Blind and Division of Vocational Rehabilitation came out in force to attack the blind. They attacked our morals and impugned our honesty.
The following letter is in response.
February 10, 1982
Delegate Helen Koss
House of Delegates
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Delegate Koss:
I am writing pursuant to the hearings on House Bill 554 which occurred yesterday. As you know it is customary for the proponents of the bill to speak first and the opponents of the bill to speak second. This gave the proponents of the Bill no opportunity to comment on any of the statements made by the opponents. Some of their statements were downright false, and others were mis- leading. Furthermore, there is information regarding some of the people who testified against the Bill, which is significant and which you should have.
Five of the individuals who testified against the Bill are State employees working either for the Maryland School for the Blind or for the Department of Education. Only three of them told the Committee that they are State employees. Mr. Batterton, Mr. Finney, and Mr. Welsh identified themselves and their positions in State employment. Gene Spurrier is a supervisor in the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. He did not tell the Committee this. He told the Committee he represents a group called the Maryland Council of the Blind. This is a small and (as near as we know) relatively inactive group. The fact that Mr. Spurrier, a supervisor in the Department of Education, was the only person who represented them at the hearing would indicate something about the type of group it is. The fact that neither he nor his supervisor, Mr. Batterton, saw fit to tell the Committee of his position in employment seems significant. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive the Committee. Gene Spurrier works in the program for the blind in DVR, and I thought you would want to know it.
Gerald Chambers also testified against the Bill. He is on the staff of the Maryland School for the Blind. I believe he is a guidance counselor. He said that he represents a group I have never heard of. The name was something like Citizens for the Improvement of Programs for the Blind. Apparently, the group consists of a few staff members of the Maryland School for the Blind and perhaps a few parents of blind children. As near as I can learn, its only activity is to go before the legislature and testify against changes in services for the blind. Mr. Chambers--like Mr. Spurrier--did not tell the Committee of his employment, and his employer, Mr. Welsh, did not mention it either. Again, this appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive the Committee.
I believe that Norman Anderson is just what he said he is, a blind person speaking for himself. Parley Vansickle operates a food service operation under the supervision of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland. He did not say that he has any personal problems with that agency. He did say that there were problems. He did not specify. Of course, there are problems in the vending program in this State. That is one of the reasons we need the Division of Consolidated Services for the Blind. The blind individuals in the food service operations have been shuffled back and forth between Vocational Rehabilitation and Blind Industries and Services of Maryland. Each agency blames the other for not having enough money to run the program as it ought to be run. Mr. Vansickle was dealing with a very real problem, one with which many blind Marylanders are trying to cope. House Bill 554 would provide solutions to many of the problems of blind vending facility operators in Maryland.
I would also like to comment on two arguments given by Mr. Batterton against the Bill. His comments can be summarized to say that he said that a separate agency for the blind would cost more money. We believe this is false. He further indicated that the Bill does not provide that blind people will be evaluated. This is partly correct. Far too much money is being spent on evaluation currently. One of the reasons that the current agency believes it is necessary to do so much evaluation is that the personnel who are dealing with blind clients lack expertise and experience. To a large degree evaluation of the blind is currently being substituted for service. This is one of the major problems in the current structure. Some evaluation may be desirable and certainly is possible, but far less than is currently being done. An example of this can be provided from yesterday's testimony. Mr. Robinson testified that there are virtually no services to the blind in Southern Maryland. Mr. Batter- ton testified that Vocational Rehabilitation has three general offices in Southern Maryland. These statements are not contradictory. Both are true. The offices of Vocational Rehabilitation where general counselors are located do not provide specialized services to the blind. Mr. Batterton's intent was to imply or to state that they do. Mr. Robinson's statement was that they don't. It is the problem we face. It gives rise to the question: How can we get meaningful services to the blind? The forty-five Vocational Rehabilitation offices are not equipped to give meaningful services. They do not do so, and I suspect they cannot do so. If blind persons were dealing with individuals who really know how to offer services for the blind and what is realistic for blind people to expect, far less evaluation would be needed. How would you feel if you were to
become blind and (simply because of that) you were subjected to a week or two
weeks of psychological tests and other tests? It wouldn't encourage you. You
would already be frustrated and concerned about blindness. If everything in
your life and yourself were to be tested, this would not help. It would cause
additional depression and concern. And if you had to wait weeks or months or years for the tests, that would add to the problems as well. Furthermore, if you could have no other services (except library services) until after the tests were completed, this would be an even bigger problem. And after all that, little or no service may be offered. This is the situation blind people face in Mary- land today. Mr. Batterton re-emphasized the problem, although he didn't mean to do so.
I am enclosing a diagram showing the amount of federal money available to Vocational Rehabilitation over the past six years. You will notice that the federal money is in three categories. In Section 110 rehabilitation monies (which provide the largest amount of money) there has been no reduction. Rather, there have been steady increases. There have been reductions in the other two categories, and in 1982 no money is made available in advance from the SSDI trust funds or from funds provided for rehabilitation of SSI recipients. However,if SSI or SSDI clients are rehabilitated successfully, their services can be purchased completely with SSI or SSDI money. The only difference is that the agency will be reimbursed instead of receiving the money in advance. Mr. Batterton may believe that his agency is not capable of providing rehabilitation of this quality. He may be concerned about where to get the up-front money to start with. But simply stating that there is a twenty-five percent reduction in federal monies is not quite accurate. Of course, this diagram does not show how much money is spent on blind people. That is up to the Maryland Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the figures are very difficult to get.
Mr. Finney's testimony also deserves comment. What he really said is: We think we're doing a reasonably good job the way it is. We're concerned about a change. He indicated that he feared it would cost some money to make a change. Of course, there is no reason why a change should cost any money. Otherwise, he only gave a report on the services that are now available. Of course, a Consolidated Services Agency for the Blind could continue all the services that are now being offered. Furthermore, the question you raised would be dealt with also. Individuals who need specialized library services for vocational training, college, on-the-job reading materials, etc., would be able to get it more readily because of the coordination and close working relationship that would be easier to maintain within one agency. In other words, the library services could be a better complement to other services to the blind than they now are. Nothing would be lost, something would be gained.
I know you and the other Committee members want to have this kind of information this letter contains. Therefore, I have wasted no time preparing it for you.
In closing, let me give you a better answer to the question you asked me. Of course, we are concerned with the efficiency of state government. However, the situation for the blind without the proposed legislation (House Bill 554) is so hopeless and so desperate that we believe the State must give it special attention. A separate Division of Consolidated Services for the Blind need not start a trend. It is the only way we know (without substantially more money) to provide adequate programs for the blind of Maryland.
Very truly yours,
(Mrs.) Ramona Walhof
Enclosure
RW: tmr
FEDERAL ALLOTMENTS FOR MARYLAND VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
Section 110
| Year | Initial | Final |
|---|---|---|
| 1977 | $11,026,463 | $11,323,063 |
| 1978 | 11,455,890 | 11,735,758 |
| 1979 | 12,425,169 | 12,470,039 |
| 1980 | 12,296,359 | 12,301,415 |
| 1981 | 12,729,591 | 12,873,529 |
| 1982 | 12,890,360 | - |
Social Security Disability – Insurance Trust Fund
| Year | Initial | Final |
|---|---|---|
| 1977 | $1,266,712 | $1,319,827 |
| 1978 | 1,132,496 | 1,400,000 |
| 1979 | 1,374,296 | 1,374,296 |
| 1980 | 1,445,204 | 1,522,410 |
| 1981 | 1,168,162 | 1,180,011 |
| 1982 | - | - |
Supplemental Security Income Fund
| Year | Initial | Final |
|---|---|---|
| 1977 | $820,721 | $841,694 |
| 1978 | 786,378 | 963,326 |
| 1979 | 1,047,514 | 1,047,514 |
| 1980 | 728,707 | 731,472 |
| 1981 | 572,080 | 572,080 |
| 1982 | - | - |
BEEPERS FOR THE BLIND?
Althea Pittman
It was stated in the Baltimore Sun that the Department of Public Works had spent $48,000.00 on a beeper system for Baltimore's subway to assist blind travelers.
I, as President of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind, wrote a letter to the Department of Public Works forwarding copies to Governor Harry Hughes, President of the City Council, Walter Orlinsky, and other officials stating the misuse of public funds to assist the blind. A letter was sent to Mr. David Wagner, Administrator of the Mass Transit Administration, requesting that we, the National Federation of the Blind of Baltimore have representation on their Citizen Advisory Board with the hope that we could give meaningful input.
The Resolutions and other correspondence are included in this article.
February 26, 1982
Mr. David Wagner Administrator
Mass Transit Administration
109 E. Redwood Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Wagner:
We have been in correspondence with the Board of Public Works regarding the subway system. The blind of Baltimore are not represented on your Accessibility
Committee. At our February meeting of the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, we passed resolutions regarding these matters. I enclose the correspondence and the resolutions for your information.
We insist that the organized blind be represented on your #504 Implementation and Advisory Committee. If we cannot have meaningful input to the Mass Transit Administration on a policy level, we must go to the legislature and make our wishes known.
Sincerely yours,
Althea P. Pittman President
Greater Baltimore Chapter
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
APP/ajc
Enclosure
correspondence with the Board of Public Works
February 26, 1982
Governor Harry Hughes
State House
1 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Governor Hughes:
The Board of Public Works has decided to spend $148,000.00 on "beepers" for the blind to be installed on the Baltimore Subway System. This decision was reached without consulting the blind.
The Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland has considered your decision and found it without merit. This expenditure is a waste of money. The blind in the City of Baltimore calls on you to reverse this decision. At our February 1982 meeting, we discussed your decision in detail and voted on a resolution to request that you consult with the organized blind of Baltimore to ensure that modifications to the subway system are meaningful and not simply an empty gesture and a waste of public money.
One final comment is in order. The Hughes Administration has consistently ignored the views of blind people. Consequently, the Hughes Administration is ignorant of the needs of the blind through its own fault. This fact is borne out by the decision of the Hughes Administration
to spend $148,000 on a project for the blind which the blind don't want. We ask for a meeting to discuss appropriate modifications for the blind in the construction of the subway system.
Sincerely yours,
Althea P. Pittman
President - Greater Baltimore Chapter
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
Enclosures Office of the Secretary
cc: Benjamin F. Lucas, II - Secretary
James J. McGinty, Jr. - Operations Specialist
Elizabeth S. Chaney - Operations Specialist
Barbara B. Allen - Supervisor of Administrative Services
Marion J. Boschert - Secretary
Development and Construction Permits
Francis J. Aluisi - Coordinator
Leonard P. Borotka - Deputy Coordinator
Eugene L. Hromadka - Administrative Aide
RESOLUTIONS
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION #8201
WHEREAS, the Maryland State Board of Public Works has approved the expenditure of $148,000 to place tone beepers on the doors of the Baltimore Metropolitan Subway for the ostensible purpose of assisting blind passengers;
WHEREAS, such beepers are unnecessary and are a hinderance to the blind rather than a help because they reinforce the stereotype of the incapable blind person to use public transportation and;
WHEREAS, the blind have demonstrated conclusively in New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco that blind passengers are perfectly capable of using the subway system without foolish modification and;
WHEREAS, this is an unnecessary extravagance and a misuse of the public revenue and;
WHEREAS, neither the Mass Transit Administration nor the State Board of
Public Works contacted the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, the largest most representative organization of blind consumers in the city and;
WHEREAS, the organized blind categorically rejects the use of foolish gadgetry: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in meeting assembled this 20th day of February 1982 that we call upon the Maryland State Board of Public Works to reverse its position to spend $148,000 on unnecessary, foolish, and impractical gadgetry and:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we call upon appropriate officials, Board of Public Works, and the Mass Transit Administration to meet with and consult with the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland representatives regarding helpful and useful adaptations of the subway system for blind passengers.
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED
RESOLUTION #8202
WHEREAS, the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of
Maryland is the largest and most representative organization of the blind and;
WHEREAS, the #504 Implementation and Advisory Committee is a committee of handicapped persons created by the Mass Transit Administration to determine the maximum accessibility needs of handicapped passengers and;
WHEREAS blind consumers are not represented on the Committee: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Greater Baltimore Chapter-National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in meeting assembled this 20th day of February 1982 that a representative be chosen by the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland should serve on the Advisory Committee to represent the views of blind consumers.
*********** OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Walter S. Orlinsky 396-4804
March 8, 1982
Mr. David A. Wagner, Administrator
Mass Transit Administration
109 East Redwood Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Dave:
For the past few years, I have been working with the National Federation of the
Blind. They have sent you copies of their recent Resolution dealing with your $148,000 expenditure to equip the subway cars with buzzers. They most pointedly suggest that it is a waste of money. This organization has spearheaded drives for and with blind people all over the country. Their expressions of points of issues relating to the blind have almost always made eminently good sense to me. Their accomplishments would indicate that they know what they are talking about. Lord knows, as an organization made up of blind people, they may have a much better insight and feel for the needs of the blind than sighted people do. All too often those of us who are sighted over-react to what we perceive, unknowingly, to be their needs.
I strongly urge you to meet these people. They are reasonable and rational and are far more knowledgeable about the needs of the blind than you or I.
Sincerely,
Walter S. Orlinsky WSO:mk
cc: Mrs. Althea Pittman
Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell
Correspondence from Mr. David A. Wagner, Administrator of Mass Transit Administration
MASS TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
109 East Redwood Street - Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(301) 383-6036
March 12, 1982
Ms. Althea Pittman, President
Greater Baltimore Chapter National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
911 Leadenhall Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Dear Ms. Pittman:
This is in response to your letter of February 26.
The 504 Implementation Advisory Committee is an open citizens' process that advises the MTA on many aspects of our operation concerning elderly and disabled patrons. The Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is welcome to join and participate in this committee. You will be notified of all the upcoming committee activities.
The "beeper" feature on the Baltimore Metro vehicles was the result of citizens' input and discussions several years ago. The MTA began working with the Transportation Committee of the Maryland Rehabilitation Counseling Association: disabled citizens including blind persons, in 1972 to assure that the rapid rail system was totally accessible to all disabled persons. I have spoken with several persons involved with the design and committee at that time.
The committee's initial concern was focused on having the vehicles stop at the same spot on the platform which could then be tactilely marked. As the vehicles move at high speeds and the trains will vary in length, this type of precision was not possible.
This concern evolved into including a beeper at the center door of each car to signal persons. The decision to include the beeper was not made lightly by the MTA. The beeper is designed to produce a tone at intervals and includes a variable timer with a range of Oto 60 seconds. This type of beeper was determined adequate, and no technical research and development was undertaken. The MTA believes a prudent decision was made to include the beeper feature. The beepers cost a total of $48,600 which include design and engineering, materials, installation and testing. This is $675 per car and less than .1% of the total cost of each car. This feature cannot be deleted at this time.
The MTA appreciates the concerns expressed in your resolution. However, we do not believe that MTA should be called on to arbitrate the differences in philosophy among blind persons on inclusion or exclusion of aids for travel. At the time the decision was made, the MTA was being responsible in involving disabled persons in the design considerations. Although public agencies have a responsibility to involve citizens, the citizens have a responsibility to be involved through their representatives. The MTA, therefore, believes that the blind citizens in Baltimore should discuss their differing philosophies and make a recommendation to the MTA on the actual operation of the beeper.
We are hopeful that you can reach a resolution and would be happy to meet at that time.
Sincerely,
David A. Wagner
Administrator
DAW/mh cc: Jean Agin
Ramona Walhof
Diane Ratcliff
Don Dzinski
Ron Hartman
Correspondence from (Ms.) Althea Pittman, President Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
March 22, 1982
Ms. Althea Pittman, President Greater Baltimore Chapter National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 911 Leadenhall Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Mr. David A. Wagner, Administrator
Mass Transit Administration
109 East Redwood Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Mr. Wagner:
This is in response to your letter of Marh 12, 1982. I must say I was shocked and dismayed by your attitude! I spent weeks trying to contact you by telephone both before and after I wrote to you. I finally reached an assistant. I feel as though you refuse to talk with me. Despite this, on March 12 you sent me a letter which is both unresponsive and arrogant.
You say: "The 504 Implementation Advisory Committee is an open citizens' process that advises the MTA on many aspects of our operation concerning elderly and disabled patrons." The Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind has attempted to advise you on the needs of the blind, and your
letter said clearly that you are refusing to heed our advice.
In response, it is my duty to inform you that we are refusing to permit you to disregard our needs. The purpose of this letter is to insist that you meet with representatives of the Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind immediately so that we can tell you the problems the beepers will cause. You have told us that some say they will bring benefits. We tell you they will cause serious problems. If you are not aware of these problems, (and your letter would indicate that you are not) you need to be. If you have not contacted me to schedule a meeting within the next two weeks, I will be forced to take other steps to make you aware of our needs.
I must comment on one other aspect of your letter which shocked and dismayed me. You say: "However, we do not believe that MTA should be called on to arbitrate the differences in philosophy among blind persons on inclusion or exclusion of aids for travel." Let me tell you emphatically that you are called on to do no such thing. Your letter of March 12 says loudly and clearly that the MTS cannot perform such an assignment. We agree with you on that point. It is not likely that all blind people of Baltimore will ever agree on exactly what is needed, any more than all women can be expected to agree on the ERA, or all bus riders are likely to agree on exactly what the routes should be. You must make decisions based on what the majority want. The Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind is by far the largest organization of blind persons in the city, and the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is by far the largest organization of blind persons in the state. If you disregard what we tell you, you are disregarding the needs of most of the blind who will ride the subway. We will not let you do this if we can prevent it.
Sincerely,
(Ms.) Althea Pittman, President Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
P.S. Mr. Wagner, let there be no misunderstanding. It is essential that you personally meet with us on this matter.
AP/han
A meeting between members of the Greater Baltimore Chapter, NFB of Maryland and Mr. Wagner has been scheduled for April 15, 1982.
FROM SLIGO CREEK
David Robinson
The Sligo Creek Chapter, NFB of Maryland is growing. The past few months have seen the chapter increase its membership by about ten members. And, we have plans to continue our steady growth in the months ahead. We welcome all the new members and look forward to their growing and working with us in the movement.
With this ever-increasing and enthusiastic growth in membership, we are beginning to take on more challenging projects. Currently, the chapter is participating in a "Community Club awards campaign", in which the club or organization can earn money by collecting proof of purchases from a variety of outlets and manufacturers. Also, we had a bake sale and are planning an educational and fundraising project during National White Cane Week. On June 12, we will be holding a swim-a-thon at White Marsh Country Club. And lastly, with fundraising, we are planning to have a yard sale.
It is no news for those who are familiar with our movement in Marylandthat the past few months have been extensively devoted to our legislative efforts in Annapolis. Members of our chapter have put many hours into this effort and are encouraged by our progress. It is encouraging to see that many of our new members went to our State Capitol to work for the passing of our "Division of Consolidated Services for the Blind" bill.
Our local communities are beginning to hear more about Sligo Creek, NFB of Maryland. We are speaking out more forcefully on local concerns and attempting to work toward having more meaningful input into local agencies that serve the blind in our area. In the past few months, several of us have assisted newly blind persons in obtaining rehabilitation services and have provided them with much needed information about blindness. We are beginning to instill in the blind of our area the belief that through collective action we, the blind, can achieve equal opportunity.
We meet on the second Saturday of each month in Silver Spring at 1:00 p.m. So come and join us.
THE NFB·OF MARYLAND WAS-THERE
(1982 March on Washington)
David Robinson
As the new year rolled around and everyone was settling into 1982, the National Federation of the Blind's "March on Washington" was taking shape. There were more than 250 Federationists from all over the country participating in this annual event. Following a briefing meeting on Sunday, January 31, the enthusiastic and dedicated Federationists--including many from Maryland--spent the next three days swarming over Capitol Hill. February 1 through 3 saw the Federation Marchers visiting the offices of every Congressman and Senator, expressing their concerns.
Marylanders spent many hours on the Hill during these three days making sure to visit with all the Maryland Delegation. We had a good response from many of our representatives and look forward to having their support.
Not only did Marylanders visit the Maryland Delegation, but we also assisted other states in meeting with their delegations.
Each of the three days would begin early with a visit to the headquarters room at the Holiday Inn, where we could pick up materials and get assignments. Our day would then be spent going from office to office carrying our message. Our message this year dealt with the following issues:
1. Request for oversight hearings in the House to investigate misuse of funds by the National Industries for the Blind (NIB);
2. The continued funding of the JOB Program after October, 1982;
-
Adding an amendment to the Voting Rights Act to guarantee blind persons the right of privacy in the polls and an opportunity to receive the necessary information on voting issues by having the information accessible;
-
Support of Bills HR852 and HR1949 which would secure the right of blind people to receive the minimum wage in sheltered workshops;
-
Protecting blind persons against discrimination in employment by adding the term "handicapping condition" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
HR1919; and
-
Removing the disincentive to go or return to work for blind persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by eliminating the earnings limitation and reducing the number of quarters required for eligibility. This can be done by passages of HR3607 and S1514.
The materials which we distributed were concise and well thought out. Our impact was greater than it has ever been before. There was no mistaking what we were about, the impact we had or the message we carried.
Wednesday afternoon found most of us (Federationists) traveling back home for a well-deserved rest. However, it is doubtful that any of us will rest for very long, because even with aching and tired feet and a feeling of great satisfaction in knowing that you have participated in a very important part in the lives of all the blind, you know that much work is still to be done. By Thursday morning, old-timers and newcomers alike will once again be doing what is necessary to achieve the goals of our Movement--our vehicle to freedom and equality--the National Federation of the Blind.
BISM 1981 YEAR END REPORT
Jean Agin
BISM continues to grow and expand its programs to adult blind Marylanders.
During fiscal year 1981, BISM's statewide Rehabilitation Division provided a variety of pre-vocational, vocational and social services to early 700 blind persons.
Braille, cane travel, cooking, sewing, handwriting, typing and woodshop, as well as employment counseling, are part of the BISM curriculum.
BISM staff contacted nearly 500 employers with a result of 29 job placements during 1981.
The Industries Division marked a record year with sales of $5,875.812. New equipment has been purchased for the paper department in Baltimore to meet the increase in orders for paper tablets and easel pads.
The current average hourly wage paid to production employees is $3.92. The per person productivity level of employees increased 27 percent over the previous year.
"Building Bridges" (BISM's Annual Report) and "The White Cane" (the quarterly newsletter) are available on cassette tape for anyone wishing more data on BISM1s activities.
"POET' s CORNER"
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mrs. Thompson learned about the National Federation of the Blind in October 1981. She is employed as a secretary at the Maurer Law Firm and is proud to be a member of the Movement.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Mary Ellen Thompson
We are Federationists and we stand
With strength in unity, you understand,
To help where help is needed By the blind across the land.
We are Federationists. We walk tall Spreading the word to one and all That we are equal. Know it now. Walk with us. You'll never fall.
We are Federationists. We have won
The chance to work and we've begun By pushing ahead, not looking back. We strive onward; far from done.
We're Federationists and we don't mind.
We'd like you to know we're an outspoken kind. We stand firmly here and show you
The National Federation of the Blind.
December 1981
NEWS BRIEFS
On March 22, a very dear friend and fellow Federationist, Jennifer Matuszak passed away. Jenny was a student at BISM and a member of our affiliate from the Baltimore area. We wish to extend our condolences to her family and friends. She will be sorely missed.
Milton Branch Scholarship Awarded by the NFB of Maryland: The Milton Branch Scholarship is a $250.00 award offered by the NFB of Maryland to a blind student attending a two-year vocational school or four-year college. The Scholarship will be given at the 1982 State Convention. To obtain your application, please write to Lloyd Rasmussen at 11909 Coronada Place, Kensington, Maryland 20895, or you may call him at 946-8345.
Applications should be received no later than October 1, 1982, to be eligible for consideration for this year's Scholarship.
The Lower Delaware Chapter, NFB of Delaware was formed on February 27, 1982. The NFB of Delaware and the NFB of Maryland worked together to bring this chapter about. Dave Robinson, Althea Pittman, Ramona Walhof and Pat Maurer participated in meetings in Dover.
Officers of the new chapter are Roberta Jensen, President; Ruth Whelen, Vice
President; Nettie Ziegler, Secretary/Treasurer; and Brady Shahan and Debbie Bredell, Board Members. This is an enthusiastic bunch, and they are looking forward to participating in Delaware's State Convention and to the NFB National Convention in Minneapolis this summer.
We look forward to great things from the Lower Delaware Chapter, NFB of Delaware.
Recently elected officers of the Greater Cumberland National Federation of the Blind are Ruth Twigg, Secretary; Jearl Conrad, First Vice President; Audrey Hedrick, President; Albert Gregory, Second Vice President, and Georgie Myers, Treasurer.
BISM: ANNOUNCES-NEW-SERVICE
Soon BISM will have the ability to produce a high turnaround of Braille materials. The LED-120 Computer, which transcribes print into Braille at a rapid speed, will be in full operation by June 1982. This will greatly improve
BISM's ability to provide the blind community with requested Braille documents.