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.
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, MD 21045
Spring/Summer, 1988
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
U.S. Postage Paid Baltimore, MD Permit No. 7532
Address Correction Requested
NFB WINS BLIND REPRESENTATION ON BISM BOARD OF TRUSTEES
(As of this writing, we are waiting for Governor's Schaefer's signature on legislation, adopted by the General Assembly, mandating the appointment of four blind persons to the BISM Board of Trustees.
Fred Dewberry, BISM's president, testified against the bill before House CAL Committee. He was apparently unable to speak on the issues against the bill, for he chose to indulge in an attack on the integrity and personal reputation of the organized blind and its leaders. Ultimately, he flip-flopped and said that he supported the legislation. These tired, worn-out tactics of a desperate opposition border on the ridiculous, for they can never establish the truth of what they are saying--and they keep on repeating themselves, not realizing the folly of their utterances. Ridiculous as these charges were, we had to respond to them seriously, for BISM and its management are important to the blind of Maryland. We reprint here President Maurer's eloquent response to President Dewberry's gibberish.
It is a high tribute to the blind of Maryland that we are organized enough and strong enough to present a convincing case, despite the public assaults, for significant change in the makeup of BISM's Board of Trustees. We take this opportunity to thank the bill's sponsors, Senator Della, Delegates Taylor, Pilchard and Cummings, and the members of the General Assembly for enacting this landmark legislation.
The road to returning quality services at BISM will be long and arduous. However, we made an important beginning by ensuring that blind persons have a voice on the Board of Trustees. As John Paul Jones said, "We have just begun to fight!")
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND letter:
February 23, 1988
The Honorable Anne Scarlett Perkins, Chairperson Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee Maryland House of Delegates
Dear Delegate Perkins:
I have been informed that Mr. Frederick Dewberry, President of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, appeared before the Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee to give testimony regarding legislation pending before the committee. I understand this appearance took place on Friday, February 19, 1988. I
further understand that the most substantial part of Mr. Dewberry's testimony was taken up with accusations against the character of the National Federation of the Blind or individuals who are members of that organization. As I understand it, Mr. Dewberry distributed a number of documents to the committee. Inasmuch as they contain accusatory material about the National Federation of the Blind and some of its members, I would like to have copies of these documents. If they are available, I would request that you send them to me. I understand that there is, for example, a paper styled "A Confidential Report Regarding the Training Program at Blind Industries and Services of Maryland." This may not be its exact title, but I am told that it is something close to that. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Dewberry. In all of the time that I have served as President of the National Federation of the Blind, I have spoken with him only once. I do not know whether he will feel it wise to send the material distributed to the legislature to me, but perhaps he will.
Mr. Dewberry sent a letter to the legislature under date of February 3, 1988. That letter contains a number of accusations against the National Federation of the Blind. It seems to me that the Dewberry letter of February 3 and the Dewberry performance of February 19 indicate that a pattern is emerging. Apparently Mr. Dewberry believes that no person (or at least no member of the National Federation of the Blind) should be permitted to criticize or call into question any activity at Blind Industries and Services of Maryland. Apparently those who criticize Blind Industries may expect to have a standard response made to them. This response will be that they are power-hungry, vicious, or reprehensible in some other way. As I understand it, Mr. Dewberry sought to substantiate his charges by telling members of the committee that a newspaper, back in 1978, had printed articles critical of Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, former President of the National Federation of the Blind. This is a tactic with which we in the Federation have become familiar. If an agency for the blind is criticized, its response is often to say that the critic is venal, vicious, immoral, or worse. The officials in question rarely give equal prominence to material which shows that the original statements contained in derogatory articles are untrue. They just trot out the old, tired name calling stuff. Mr. Dewberry quoted articles which appeared in 1978. I herewith send you an article which appeared in 1981. The later article, of course, gives the lie to those which appeared earlier. Dewberry has had this article in his possession. Maybe he didn't notice that it contradicted those he was reading to the committee. Mr. Dewberry says in his letter of February 3 that the National Federation of the Blind is vicious. You will understand that I don't think it is. It is predictable that I would hold this opinion. However, I do not understand what this has to do with the performance of those who are operating Blind Industries.
Mr. Dewberry is responsible for what he has done. He cannot change this responsibility by name calling. It is, perhaps, one of the oldest responses of humankind to answer a charge of misbehavior by saying that the person who has found you out is immoral or worse. Mr. Dewberry is charged with the direction of programs at Blind Industries. He serves as president of that agency. If what he does causes the program to go well, he deserves commendation. If he fails, he deserves the blame.
The training program at BISM was terminated. This was done without consultation with the organized blind of the state of Maryland. By the time the blind learned that the Training Program had met its demise, the act of termination was already complete. Mr. Dewberry appears to have acted in secret.
Mr. Dewberry was invited to come to the convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. I was on the platform when he came. I observed his behavior. I would be misrepresenting if I told you that I understood it. Mr. Dewberry refused to answer questions. He said that he was not knowledgeable about affairs dealing with the blind. He refused to consider that the people in the room should be consulted when considering what programs should be made available. The conclusion I reached was that if Mr. Dewberry doesn't know about blindness, and if he refuses to consider advice from those who do know, programming for the blind is very likely to suffer badly.
Although I was not present during the committee hearing on February 19, 1988, I have written statements from several people regarding that which was said by Mr. Dewberry. It is my understanding that Mr. Dewberry told the committee directly and by implication that the Federation is a very bad organization indeed. He said that the National Federation of the Blind is a cult, that BISM had been controlled by the Federation, and that both financial and other problems of BISM are attributable to the bad behavior of the NFB. It seems particularly astonishing to me that the president of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland should make such an accusation. In effect, he is saying, "Don't blame me; someone else did it."
I believe that the blind have not only a right but a responsibility to be involved in programs for the blind. The National Federation of the Blind holds a convention each year. At the convention there are members of Congress, federal officials responsible for managing programs dealing with the blind, blind individuals from every field who are successful in their careers, and literally hundreds of others in some way connected with programs for the blind. Is it reasonable for Blind Industries and Services of Maryland to know about these things? Is it within the bounds of responsible administration for BISM to send people to participate in such conferences? It would be hard to imagine how anyone could defend preventing those
who wish to participate from doing so. Where do blind people find the greatest benefit? Where will they be able to get at federal officials or others who can change the course of programming for the blind? Where will they meet hundreds of other successful blind people in all walks of life? Where can they get help finding a job? Where can they get a loan to go into business? Where can you find scholarships to attend the college or university of your choosing? Does BISM offer this? The answer is no. However, every one of these services and more can be had at a convention of the National Federation of the Blind. How could a responsible administrator of services for the blind tell a blind student to stay home?
I am told that Mr. Dewberry said to the committee that it is cruel to raise false hopes in the hearts of the blind. If this means that blind people should be encouraged to believe that there is nothing for them but despair, then Mr. Dewberry should gracefully resign his position and find other employment where hope is not needed. I pray that this is not what he meant. The blind of the state deserve better. In order to change what can be a bleak prospect to one which offers real promise, there must be inspiration. Mr. Dewberry, the head of the agency principally charged with providing services to the blind in our state, has a responsibility to help provide the vision of a brighter tomorrow. If he fails to do it, he has abdicated his responsibility and he has not done his job. Blind people have very few champions, and, therefore, very few opportunities. If the agency assigned to provide service to the blind stands as an enemy rather than a friend, those limited opportunities become almost nonexistent. As a policy-making body the Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee and the legislature should help to make it possible for blind people to have a chance.
Cordially Yours,
Marc Maurer, President
PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS: THE MARYLAND VENDING PROGRAM FOR THE BLIND
by Don Morris
In 1973 Congress enacted changes in the Federal Randolph Sheppard Act. Among other conditions, the law required that each State Agency participating in the priority of the Act must reapply for authority to administer such a program. It required that to apply for this authority the State MUST have a set of Rules and Regulations (negotiated with the Blind Vendors) to govern the program.
After a decade and a half, the Maryland Vending Program for the Blind has Rules and Regulations to govern its operation.
In early 1984, Maryland Vendors, with the help of Jim Gashel of the National Federation of the Blind, were finally able to get the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to sit down at the bargaining table to negotiate these rules and regulations. After four years of negotiations and nearly 100 meetings, the Rules are complete.
DVR did not give up easily however. It took not only help from the NFB, but from the office of the Attorney General, the House and Senate Joint Committee on Administrative and Executive and Legislative Review, several State Senators and Delegates and the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
At a hearing before the Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, it was revealed that at least one vending facility is being operated by a sighted woman. The proceeds from this operation are going to the vending program instead of one of the out of work vendors, because BISM did not monitor the activities of the former manager. This manager (we are told by BISM) left unpaid bills for which BISM was responsible. BISM was left holding the bag because they did not require the vendor to transfer phone charges from their name to his, and because the vendor was experiencing business problems that BISM did not help to resolve.
Before the same Legislative Committee, Fred Dewberry (BISM's President) told the Committee that this wasn't true. He said that Federal Law prohibited such a practice. I later had the opportunity to give the Committee the name and telephone number of the sighted woman, manager, and told them that "we can't both be telling the truth." In early April, notice was sent to all Blind Vendors that this facility is open available for assignment to a Blind Vendor. You be the judge.
As many of you are aware, a law suit was filed on behalf of all Maryland Blind Vendors because of DVR and BISM continuing to try to collect set aside. They did this even though they had not applied for (and obviously had not received) authority as a State Licensing Agency. The suit is scheduled for hearing in May. We feel very confident that even with the "connections" of DVR, that we will prevail in the courts.
MARYLAND COMMITTEE OF BLIND VENDORS DONALD J. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN
Myrtie Adkins, Chief Technical Assistance Branch
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Dear Ms. Adkins:
February 18, 1988
As you no doubt realize, the Second Quarter Financial data supplied by your office to the Committee of Blind Vendors is inaccurate and should be corrected and re-submitted.
As you were unable to attend the regular Committee of Blind Vendors held February 7, request, the Committee of Blind Vendors convened and met with the following people on February 16,
Frederick Dewberry, President, BISM Paul Hagner, Controller, BISM
meeting of the 1988, at your another meeting 1988:
Dominic Capuano, Director, Vending Division, BISM Myrtie Adkins, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch, DVR
M. Eugene Spurrier, Chief, Services for the Blind, DVR and a quorum of the Maryland Committee of Blind Vendors.
While many areas of discrepancy were noted in the discussion, let me identify a few of the more glaring issues here.
1. Stand No Manager. We noted amazement that while BISM had operated several facilities in the absence of a manager, the net effect of their operation was that absolutely no income or loss was experienced. Discussion brought out the fact that income had in fact been realized, but the income had been used for the acquisition of additional (new) inventory. This is, of course, an inaccurate method of accounting for profits and expenditures.
2. Sale of Assets. We noted that it was surprising that no income whatsoever was realized from the sale of assets which had been replaced by the expenditure of $30,779 for "Replacement Equipment". In times past, when equipment was replaced, the replaced equipment was sold and income was realized.
3. Set Aside. Actual Set Aside realized ($152,485) through one half of the year (7/1/87 through 12/31/87) equaled 46.59% of
·the full year's budgeted amount. We were told that approximately
$25,000 to $30,000 of the expected Set Aside revenue had not been received. If the $30,000 not received is added to the $152,485 received, the actual Set Aside (at 12%) for the six month period would equal 55.76% of the projected amount.
4. DVR Grant. Of the total amount DVR has committed to the Vending Program, $81,491, as of the first half of the year, only
$26,139, has been paid by DVR to the Vending Program. Although you told us at this point in our discussion that the information you had sent was incorrect, the materials we received from your office show that $6,139 was for a new computer. It turns out from conversation held that this is not a new computer, but is the same used computer about which the Committee complained in our early 1987 discussions with you about the Budget. You have told us that the report received by the Committee was incorrect, that the computer was not charged to Vending Program and that the actual DVR funds turned over to the Vending Program really amount to only $20,000. Additional concerns regarding this category show up in the discussion of expense items later in this letter.
5. Kennelly Project. Here, of course, no part of the
$50,000 budgeted income has been realized, as a result of the several years' delay in getting this off the ground.
6. Salary and Wages. When asked about the fact that a number of Vending Consultants have received more than one half of the year's salary at the midyear point, we were advised that an earlier failure to effect pay raises for them had been corrected during this fiscal year, and therefore it was certain to run over budget for the full year. When we inquired about the Consultant who has not received half of the budgeted salary through half the year, Mr. Hagner's reply was "I can't explain that."
7. Technical Fees. This category is $312 over budget, and will be for the entire year. This overage is due to an increase (not anticipated by BISM) in the Vending Division portion of the BISM audit.
8. Contractual Services. This is the expense category which includes the repair of equipment. The full year budget amount is $88,200. With one half of the year complete nearly 80% of the money budgeted has already been spent. Dominic indicated that "as you predicted, we did not budget enough for this item."
9. Supplies. This category has a subheading of "Increased Inventories". It is at this item that the incorrect accounting from the income category "Stand No Manager" shows up. The report shows $2,057 of increased inventory as an additional credit to the original $12,000 budgeted amount. The year began $12,000 to budgeted, halfway through this category shows $14,057 available to spend. At least $900 of this amount rightfully belongs in the category "Stand No Manager". According to Dominic BISM operated a facility at a $900 profit spending that excess profit on increased inventory for the facility. This bypassed the income side of the P&L with these funds.
10. New Equipment. This category is already overspent for the entire year, with half the year to go.
11. Replacement Equipment. Though this is a category which had no budget assigned to it, $6080 has been spent through half the year. The explanation "These items of replacement equipment by oversight, were not listed on the budget ..."
12. Committee Expenses. Though this category has spent only $136, I have submitted an expense reimbursement request in the amount of $3,601. The expenses submitted are all in accord with the approved By Laws for Committee operations which were forwarded to Mr. Spurrier a year ago. The Division has chosen not to pay that expense request (even though the full Committee reviewed and approved the expenses) citing the fact that payment of this request will expend more funds than were budgeted. The Committee advised the Division that it was not wise for DVR to reduce funds Budgeted for Committee Expenses from $5,000 to
$3,000. In your memorandum of 8/21/87, you responded to our concern; "Committee expenses have remained projected at $3,000 based on expenditures last year. The projections seems reasonable at this time. If adjustments are needed they will be discussed with the Committee as necessary."
13. Fixed Charges. This category certainly got an "interesting" treatment. It has such items (not budgeted) as cleaning the vending office at a cost of more than $75.00 per month. Your memo of 8/21/87 said "some of the general expense at BISM would relate to items such as Mr. Dewberry's time, Mr. Hagner's time, their clerical staff time, their office space and support staff, cleaning the building, normal upkeep of the facility, space occupied by Vending staff." That statement seems to me to be pretty clear. Yet, BISM now charges $955 for cleaning the office. DVR took no exception to the charge. Is there a reason for the tacit approval?
The meeting included a discussion of why DVR was withholding DVR funds committed to the Vending Program. You indicated that remaining DVR support for the Vending Program was restricted as to its use. $5,000 for training and the balance for "Renovations and New Stands."
I said that I was unaware of any such restriction. Having reread your memo of 8/21/87, I see that in that memo such a restriction was declared. While I agree that this memo cites the restrictions I do not have any recollection of such restrictions being discussed with the Committee, or Blind Vendors at large. If you have documentation that there was discussion and/or agreement, please advise me.
It is unfortunate that so much time is consumed having to deal with inaccurate information. Prior experience shows us that
it will be possible to take the time to make the corrections. If the time was spent in advance of issuing the incorrect information, we could do the job once and have it done.
Best regards, Donald J. Morris
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COMMITTEE KILLS EFFORT TO STRENGTHEN WHITE CANE LAW
(Delegates Thomas and Cummings introduced legislation, HB1075, that would have strengthened the White Cane Law by giving blind people the right to sue because of discrimination. Unfortunately, the bill failed in committee. Our motto with legislation is: if you don't succeed the first time, try again. And, we will! The following testimony by Ron Metenyi, which he delivered at the hearing for HB1075, illustrates the importance of this legislation for the blind.)
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HB1075
by Ron Metenyi
Thomas Edison said: "Invention is 99 percent perspiration, one percent inspiration." Without much hard work, one has only a good idea, no practical result. Yet without inspiration, no amount of effort is likely to produce an invention.
There is a similar relationship between our striving to assure equal access to all blind people in employment, public housing, and public accommodations, and your striving to enact laws that will enable us to break down barriers erected by prejudice.
Ours must be the massive, ongoing effort. We must make the most of every opportunity. We must work ceaselessly to disabuse people of the many myths and misconceptions concerning blindness. And we must pursue justice relentlessly. At the same time, we know that we can not be first class citizens in fact of everyday life before we become first class citizens in point of law.
Currently, those who practice blatant discrimination based on blindness can be charged with a misdemeanor, and fined $500.00 This is good, but by no means sufficient. Since discrimination based on blindness is mostly a matter of private actions by private parties aimed at blind individuals, the White Cane Law should be amended to encompass the right to bring civil suit for recovery of damages and attorneys' fees.
Now I submit that blind people will not rush to take everyone to court. Litigation is time consuming, emotionally draining, and costly. We will inform those disposed to discriminate of the possible consequences of intransigent behavior. We will persuade them with the aid of particularly persuasive persons- like Delegate Cummings, who convinced the owners of the Grecian Health Spa that they should permit blind people to use their equipment. We will coerce with the threat of civil suit. I once heard it said that the law of the Old West was: "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word." A credible threat of private action may prove gun enough.
When all else fails, we will sue. As Dr. Jernigan says: "We are simply no longer willing to be treated like second class citizens; and we will do what we have to in order to put a stop to it."
Finally, the time must come when intellectual acuteness means more than visual acuity. The time must come when the contents of one's character means more than how one reads the contents of an eye chart. The time must come when the Blind are seen as individuals, not stereotypes. The time must come when people are valued for proven ability, not written off because of a disability. Dr. Martin Luther King said: "No black man can be truly free so long as one white man remains unfree. And no white man can be truly free so long as one black man remains unfree." So it is with the blind and the sighted.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WHITE CANE TASK FORCE
The White Cane Task Force, appointed by Governor Schaefer last year, issued its report and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly on December 31, 1987. The following is a summary of recommendations of interest to blind persons:
- The Task Force recommends the inclusion of physically disabled as an additional protected group under the White Cane Law.
- The Task Force recommends that the White Cane Law should be amended to specifically state that discrimination against the blind or visually impaired, deaf or hearing impaired, and physically disabled individuals is prohibited.
- The Task Force recommends that the name of the White Cane Law be changed to White Cane and Disabled Individuals Public Accommodations and Employment Act. (We are opposed to changing the name of this law, as stated in Resolution 87-08, adopted at our Frostburg convention. We have already started to defend our position before the General Assembly.)
- The Task Force does not recommend the establishment of a separate agency to enforce the White Cane Law.
- The Task Force recommends that the White Cane Law and Article 49B be amended to permit private suits by or on behalf of aggrieved persons intended to receive the protection of these laws.
- The Task Force recommends that the White Cane Law be amended to permit damage awards for the amount of actual damages and for up to $5,000 per offense for punitive damages.
- The Task Force recommends that the White Cane Law be amended to permit the awarding of attorney's fees to individuals with valid claims brought under this law.
- The Task Force recommends that Section 21-511 of the Transportation Article be amended to provide the right-of-way to all pedestrians, not just disabled pedestrians, crossing at intersections and crosswalks. Drivers who violate this section should be subject to both criminal and civil penalties provided under the White Cane Law and Transportation Article.
A LETTER FROM SHIRLEY TREXLER
(Shirley Trexler takes her Federation philosophy seriously and tries to change public attitudes about blindness. The public's belief that blind persons are not capable of serving on juries must be changed. As a result of this letter, Shirley had a half hour interview on Radio Station WBAL to express our views. The defeat of legislation protecting our right to jury service in the House Judiciary Committee during the 1988 session of the General Assembly shows that we still have much work to do. Shirley Trexler's effort was an important step in our battle.)
February 16, 1988
David Barrett
Vice President and General Manager WBAL Radio
Baltimore, MD
Dear Mr. Barrett,
I was very much offended and disturbed by the remarks of talk-show host Allan Prell on Monday morning's program (February 15, 1988) regarding blind people serving on juries. I found that Mr. Prell's comments were based on a total lack of knowledge about blind people and their ability to be resourceful and make judgments equally as well as sighted people while participating on a jury panel. Many of my friends called me, having heard the program, very distressed, but were not able to get through to the station to voice their opinions.
I am a member of the National Federation of the Blind that backed the legislation which has passed the Senate to prohibit discrimination against the blind and deaf serving on juries. I would like this opportunity to have our opinion more fully expressed on your station. Preferably on the Ron Smith show where guests are featured. We have many qualified spokespersons who can present our point of view and debate with others.
I will follow up this letter within a reasonable length of time by a phone call.
Your station is the most prominent one in this community and many blind persons are listeners to your station. I hope you will be cooperative with us and give us the opportunity soon to make our position clear to the public.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Shirley Trexler, Chairperson Public Relations Committee
WHY DON'T STUDENTS GET THEIR CHECKS ON TIME?
by Tina Cummings
(The following interview was conducted by Tina Cummings, a blind accounting major at the University of Maryland, as part of a class project. This interview with an agent of Maryland state government, who should know better, shows prejudice not only against the blind, but against women as well. Even more unbelievable is the evident disinterest in, and disrespect for DVR clients and their needs. In short, the answer to the question posed here is that the Department of Education simply doesn't care. The unusually low number of students supported by DVR is also worrisome.)
November 16, 1987
Mr. George Haiden is Director of Accounting of the Maryland State Department of Education.
I contacted Mr. Haiden as a client of Vocational Rehabilitation. I explained to Mr. Haiden that I have been experiencing delays in receiving my transportation and maintenance checks. Before I was able to begin asking questions I was informed that since I was a female I would probably screw up the interview. I explained that I had been enrolled in the program during the summer and was reinstated during the mid part of September. I explained that my counselors secretary sent the paperwork in well in advance of the time required. I would like to make a note that the interview will not all be included due to a biased attitude of Mr. Haiden. Certain personal questions where asked and other implications on Mr. Haiden’s part were made. I feel that I was still given adequate information to make a conclusion on the type of system that he uses.
Q: What is the first step of getting a check from your department?
A: The first thing to remember is that your check is handled like any other vendor in the department. I send out over 18,000 checks every two weeks. If there is a delay in paying another vendor than your check is delayed too. If it can stay in the bank all the better. But back to your counselor. Your counselor will fill out voucher requests. These requests are submitted for approval and then are sent to my office. If your counselor is a male then the paperwork will be correct. If a female filled out the vouchers than the social security number will probably be wrong or the amount of the payment will be wrong. Either way the thing will be screwed up and we will have to send it back to be redone. After that the voucher is given to the girls in the office to be added to the list. Then we make out the check vouchers to be sent to the State Treasury office. They make out the amount on the check and send it out to you. If you are not getting your check on time it is probably because of a woman.
Q: Why am I considered a vendor?
A: That is the way we set up the system. There are too few of you to make it worth our while to do them separately.
Q: I figured that there would be a much higher number of clients receiving checks. How many checks do you process for us?
A: We only send out between 40 to 60 checks a month. I am estimating that for students because we also include checks in Vocational Rehabilitation for those elementary school and high school students attending special schools for retardation or other handicaps. Which one are you? Either way all the checks go out at one time. If any of them are not ready the whole thing waits.
Q: What do you do about holidays? This seems to be the problem that I face the most. When there is a holiday I might not get my check until three to five days later.
A: If there is a holiday then there really isn't anything we can do but get the information to the State Treasury Department earlier. If we are closed on a day that your check is due then it is made due the next day. Again, the State Treasury backs it all up at least two more days during a holiday. I for the life of me don't know why. It's been that way for over the last ten years that I've been here. If the holiday hits on the day you are to get your check, they screw it up.
Q: Wouldn't there be any other way of doing our checks by themselves?
A: Well sweetie: If you ask us to pull your checks out and handle them special then it messes the whole thing up even more. Your checks would probably be even later. This is your chance to change the system anyway you want to. Money is no object. What would you do?
Q: What about electronic transfer?
A: Most of the checks we are talking about are not even worth the price of the paper it's printed on. Your only talking about a pitlin' amount. To do an electronic transfer I must have at least $5,000.00 in checks to do that. I wouldn't come close to that in months. We could do that if you are so used to waiting for your checks. I used to work with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation some years ago. This is a new thing for the counselors to work with. Before they would have to go to the local clubs and beg for money to help their clients. They didn't have this fund to count on. Clients were supposed to go to Uncle Joe or Mom or Dad to help them get through until their counselor could get money to them. There should be other agencies that you could go to get help.
Q: What then could be done to keep from delaying the checks? There have been times when I couldn't go to class because my check hadn't come on time. I don't feel that I should be placed in a situation that if I am going to school, how am I supposed to get there if I don't have the money?
A: We really can’t be expected to hold some little student’s hand at the University of Maryland up there taking little classes in accounting. I have to go. One of my supervisors is asking me a question.
CHAPTER REPORTS
Mountain City Chapter:
The Mountain City Chapter, NFB, has only six very active members. We all pull together and manage to get things done. In the beginning of March, we started taking orders for Easter candy made by a local restaurant. We also purchased Easter baskets at $20.00 each, and ran them off on a 40 tip board. Our total profit was $440.00. One of our members donated a black-and-white TV which we are now selling chances on. In the past, we have done such
things as bake sales and candy sales. Also, we sold sets of oven mitts. We pull together and get things done. All of us are looking forward to seeing you in Chicago. (Jean Faulkner, President.)
Greater Cumberland Chapter:
The Greater Cumberland Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind has had good prosperity since early October. We have had a very successful nut sale. We have also been selling folding scissors. On April 16, the Greater Cumberland Chapter had a swim-a-thon at Allegheny Community College. At this time we expect to raise over $1,000.00. On Saturday and Sunday, June 11 and 12, our chapter will be participating in the Cumberland Heritage Day activities. We will be selling nuts and folding scissors at the festival. (Mark Plantz, President.)
Eastern Shore Chapter:
The Eastern Shore Chapter is now holding its meeting in the Wicomico County Library. Our fundraising consists of our sales project, a 50/50 drawing every Friday, a cake raffle every month, a Chapter auction at the end of our meetings, and two future bake sales on June 18 and October 1. We are planning a canned goods raffle after we have collected twenty-four cans in a box. (Benny Bagwell, President.)
Central Maryland Chapter:
We have been busy with public education projects. The director of the Howard County Special Education program, Martha Sullivan, and a vision teacher, Pam Matheson, attended one of our meetings, and we had an interesting exchange of ideas. We also participated in an exhibit at the Florence Baines Senior Citizen Center distributing NFB literature and discussing blindness. It is important for us to fully participate in the community. Therefore we met at the Board of Elections and looked at the county's new voting machines so that we could exercise our rights as citizens.
Parents Division:
The Parents Division offers information and support to parents of blind children. We conduct special seminars such as the "Literacy for Life" seminar on May 14. We also hold monthly meetings to answer questions and share ideas. At the June 13 meeting, we will discuss summer camps and recreational opportunities for blind children in Maryland. We will attend IEP meetings with parents to act as advocates or to offer moral support. The 1988 officers for the division are: Sandy Kelly, President; Barbara Cheadle, Vice-President; Marla Miller, Secretary; John Cheadle, Treasurer; Gwen Colbert, Maureen Short, Board Members.
SPECS
We are sorry to report the deaths of two members from the Baltimore Chapter: John R. Jones and Glenn Libertine. May they rest in peace.
Congratulations to Althea Pittman and Trevelyn Carter who will be married on June 25.
Thanks to the invitation from Lance Finney, Director of the Maryland State Library for the Blind and Handicapped, Federationists participated in a Read-a-then at Baltimore's Harbor Place to celebrate National Library Week. By reading Braille, Ellen Nichols, Orlo Nichols, Lloyd Rasmussen, Judy Rasmussen, and Carol Smith spread knowledge about the usefulness of Braille to the general public.
On April 23, Carol Smith and Ken Silberman represented the NFB at the Baltimore Maryland Science Center's exhibit on blindness. They made a presentation and answered numerous questions from the public. Thanks to Carol and Ken, more people learned that blindness is a nuisance, not a handicap.
We are sorry to report the death, February 23, of Bernard Crooke, Chief of Police for Montgomery County. Chief Crooke enhanced the protection of the rights of blind persons throughout Maryland by giving us the opportunity to discuss the White Cane Law with the Maryland Police Chiefs Association. He also helped us convince the Motor Vehicle Administration that questions on the White Cane Law should be placed on the drivers license examination. Chief Crooke did not work for the blind, he worked with the blind.
We are pleased to report that 16 students from Maryland entered the Braille Readers are Leaders contest this year. We are proud of their achievements. Each student is a winner because Braille literacy is an essential skill for success. To encourage Maryland students to enter the contest, we awarded state prizes. The winners of the Maryland prizes are David Foster (grades 9-12), Chad Fenton (grades 5- 8), Jennifer Baker (grades 2-4), Henry Brim (grade 1). Special congratulations go to Charles Cheadle who won a national prize in the Print to Braille reading category.
Make your plans now to attend the 1988 national convention of the NFB (Chicago, July 2-9) and the 1988 state convention of the NFB of Maryland (Towson, September 9-11). Announcements and reservation forms for the state convention will be mailed shortly.
THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, Inc.
Spring/Summer, 1988
The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, is a non-profit organization of blind people whose purpose is to promote equal opportunities for the blind. We provide advocacy services for the blind, special training programs for parents of blind children, job referrals and placements for the blind, public education programs, scholarships to blind students, and help the newly blinded to acquire special techniques for maintaining productive lives.
Please address inquiries to:
NFB of Maryland
9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, MD 21045
phone (301)992-9608
Please send donations to:
NFB of Maryland
11909 Coronada Place
Kensington, MD 20895
The Braille Spectator is published quarterly ·for members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland and others who share an interest in the work of this organization. The recorded edition, available on cassette, can be obtained from the editor upon request. Cassettes may be returned to the National Center for the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230.
Changes of address and additions to the circulation list should be sent to the editor. Address all news items, articles and letters to the editor.
Althea Pittman, Editor The Braille Spectator 9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, MD 21045
Officers:
Sharon Maneki, President Columbia, Maryland
Althea Pittman, First Vice President, Baltimore, Maryland
Ronald Metenyi, Second Vice President Baltimore, Maryland
Mary Ellen Reihing, Secretary Baltimore, Maryland
Judy Rasmussen, Treasurer Kensington, Maryland
Members of the Board of Directors:
Leroy Bagwell, Salisbury, Maryland
Pat Mayweather Lanham, Maryland
Al Carter, Annapolis, Maryland
Carleen McKenzie, Frostburg, Maryland
Pat Winebrenner, Frostburg, Maryland
Brenda Williams, Baltimore, Maryland