Spring 1986
Althea Pittman, Editor
327 Yale Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
BALTIMORE, MD.
PERMIT NO. 7532
THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR
a publication of the
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, INC.
Althea Pittman, Editor
327 Yale Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
Organizational Officers
Marc Maurer, President
327 Yale Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
Telephone 301 644-0179
Althea Pittman Vice President
911 Leadenhall Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Judy Rasmussen Secretary
11909 Coronada Pl. Kensington, Maryland 20895
Al Maneki
Treasurer
9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, Maryland 21045
WE ARE THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR OURSELVES
Spring, 1986
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 cassette, 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.
CONTENTS
Superciliousness At The School For The Blind:
The Blind Say No--By Marc Maurer l
To Fight Discrimination--By Vanessa Lowery. 8
Task Force On Discrimination Against The Blind--
By Ron Metenyi........................... 12
Selling Federationism In Sligo Creek--
By Lloyd Rasmussen.................... 13
Keep Marching on Washington--By Patricia Maurer...................................... 13
Cumberland Chapter President Honored...... 14
Parents Workshop Held--By Barbara Cheadle. 16
Funding The Movement
New Ideas New Changes............................ o••o••••••••o•••17
NFB of Maryland Scholarships--By Al Maneki 17
Central Maryland Chapter Report--By Sharon Maneki...................................... 18
1986 Legislative Agenda--By Sharon Maneki. 18
How To Make A Bad Situation Worse--By Sharon Maneki..................................... 19
Protecting Our Right To Serve--By Sharon Maneki..................................... 22
Resolutions .................................. 23
Spectator Specs........................................................................... 27
Superciliousness At The School For The Blind: The Blind Say No
By Marc Maurer
Sometimes, I think the major problem that we have with the Maryland School for the Blind is the misunderstanding that it has of the real interests of blind people. Central to this misapprehension is the question: Are the blind more important than the school? Or is the school more important than the blind? Often, the behavior of officials at the School for the Blind suggests that they believe that the School and the School officials are more important than the people they serve.
In the fall of 1985, I asked Dr. Richard Welsh, Superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind to speak to the Convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. When he answered my letter of invitation, Dr. Welsh made it perfectly clear that he did not want to attend our convention. The letter that he wrote was calculated to put the blind in their places. Dr. Welsh intended to show that he was more important than the blind of Maryland.
Why does this matter? What difference does it make if a minor state official puffs himself up with pride and pomposity? Who cares if the head of the school for the blind is so filled with egotism that he misreads his own importance? The answer is simple. If this official believes that the blind are truly insignificant, he cannot possibly provide the leadership for an educational program that will serve blind students.
I responded to the letter Dr. Welsh sent by writing to the
President of the Maryland School for the Blind. Here is my letter:
February 24, 1986
Mr. S. James Campbell, President
The Maryland School for the Blind 3501 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21236-4499
Dear Mr. Campbell:
The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is an organization of blind people whose purpose is to solve the problems faced by the blind. In order to solve these problems, we gather what data we can and take appropriate action.
On September 13, 1985, I invited Dr. Richard Welsh, the Superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind, to come to the convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. My letter of invitation said:
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
Marc Maurer, President
327 Yale Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
Dr. Richard Welsh, Superintendent Maryland School for the Blind 3501 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21236
Dear Dr. Welsh:
The annual convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland wi11 be taking place the weekend of November 1, 2, and 3 at the Carousel Hotel in Ocean City, Maryland. This year we are giving emphasis to the education of blind children in the State of Maryland. Therefore, we are inviting you to participate in the 1985 Convention program. We would like to have you tell us about the programs of the Maryland School for the Blind and how those programs fit into the structure of other programs throughout the state for the education of blind children. Matters dealing with the education of blind children will be considered on our Convention program on Saturday afternoon. We would plan to have a discussion of programming at the School for the Blind at approximately 2:15 p.m. You should plan for a time period between thirty and forty-five minutes with part of that for questioning.
There are those who have suggested that
the role of the School for the Blind in the educational process for the blind has changed. We would appreciate your comments regarding the role of the School for the Blind and those services which are available from it.
We would also like to invite you to be our guest at our 1985 Convention banquet which will take place on Saturday, November 2, at 7:00 p.m. If you are able to join us at the banquet, please let me know how many people you will be bringing with you. I will also need a brief resume from you so that a proper introduction may be made.
Very truly yours, Marc Maurer, President
When Dr. Welsh responded to my letter, I found myself astonished by the tone and content of his remarks. Dr. Welsh undertook to cross-examine me. He listed five questions which must be answered before he would consider attending the Convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. In
Listing these questions, he made a number of accusatory statements. Dr. Welsh accused the National Federation of the Blind of discourtesy. His letter states: "Will you, as President of the State Chapter, assure me that I will be treated courteously at your meeting? My previous experience addressing your chapter was a very negative one. The Chairman of the meeting interrupted my prepared remarks before I had taken the amount of time I had been allotted." Apparently, Dr. Welsh believes that the person chairing the meeting was discourteous when he refused to relinquish control of the meeting to Dr. Welsh. There is no guaranteed right for any speaker to use any specific amount of time. Beyond that, it is conceivable that the person chairing the meeting wanted to leave some time for questions from the audience. Meetings of the National Federation of the Blind may be spirited.
Controversial subjects may be discussed. Opposing viewpoints may be expressed. However, they are always courteous. In fact, the blind has a right to know about the programs at the School for the Blind. It is highly impertinent of Dr. Welsh to suggest that he attend this meeting if only he could be treated courteously. We of the National Federation of the Blind take pride in our behavior; it is that of ladies and gentlemen. Apparently, Dr. Welsh, the head of the School for the Blind, is of the opinion that we are unmannerly children. The very idea that we have something to learn from him demonstrates his attitude. It is an attitude of insufferable arrogance. Dr. Welsh believes himself well-educated and the blind unlettered. He believes that he is on one level and that we are on another and less important one. Dr. Welsh is not our Schoolmaster, and we are not under his tutelage. It is our tax money that pays his salary. He is accountable to us--not the other way around.
Dr. Welsh demanded to know who else would be on the program.
He wanted to know what topics these other participants would present. He wanted me to "clarify" my letter. His questions were: "l. Can you clarify for me what you mean when you ask how the programs of The Maryland School for the Blind fit into the structure of other programs throughout the State for the education of blind children? 2. You indicated that 'there are those who have suggested that the role of the School in the educational process for the blind children in Maryland has changed.' Can you clarify for me what kind of changes you are referring to, what time period you are referring to, and who it is that believes these changes have taken place?" Finally, he asked if the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland would pay his expenses. The answer to this question, incidentally, is that it would.
It is apparent that Dr. Welsh intended to avoid the
convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. He intended to do so by quibbling about the details. The Maryland School for the Blind asks that many millions of dollars be spent on its programs each year. All we wanted to know is what these programs are.
Blind people who have attended the School for the Blind frequently tell me that educational programs there lag far behind those in the public schools. They say that upon graduation they find themselves ill-prepared to compete. They tell me that the School for the Blind fails to provide the kind of education which will help blind people become self-sufficient and self-supporting.
The blind of Maryland wants the chance to lead full and productive lives. To do this, we must have training and opportunity. We are willing to work, and hope, and dream. We are not willing to face arrogance or impertinence in those officials who receive high pay to serve us.
This letter requests that you find a way to meet with us of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland so that we may better understand those programs available at the School for the Blind. It goes without saying that we will treat you courteously. We wi11 expect to be treated in the same way. We may like or dislike programs at the School for the Blind. At the very least, we have a right to know about them.
Very truly yours,
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
This letter requests only one thing--a meeting with officials of the School for the Blind. Surely, this is not unreasonable to ask. Therefore, imagine my surprise at receiving a response from James Campbell, President of the Maryland School for the Blind. His letter said that if we wanted to meet with school officials, we could invite Richard Welsh again next year. There would be no meeting with School for the Blind officials.
The blind of Maryland are simply not important enough to bother about. The following correspondence tells the tale.
March 19, 1986
Mr. Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland 21230
Dear Mr. Maurer:
I have received your letter of February 24, 1986. My delay in responding resulted from my being out of the country until March 17, 1986.
I have reviewed with Dr. Richard Welsh the circumstances surrounding your invitation for him to address the November 1985 meeting of your organization and his inability to do so. I understand that Dr. Welsh responded to your invitation on September 24 and indicated that he was attempting to rearrange a prior commitment he had for the day of your meeting so that he could attend. He also attempted to clarify the topic you asked him to address, to learn more about the rest of the program you had scheduled, and to express his reservations about the treatment he received the last time he spoke to your organization. He openly indicated his reluctance to invest the time necessary to prepare a presentation and to travel back and forth to Ocean City if he was to be treated the same way again I reviewed the letter Dr. Welsh wrote to you and found it not inappropriate. I understand from Dr. Welsh that four weeks have passed, and he received no answer from you. Since the date in question was less than two weeks away, Dr. Welsh went ahead and confirmed his prior commitment for that day, assuming that you would not be responding to his letter. Within a day or two you called to say that you had just received his letter and that it must have been delayed in the mail. You indicated that you still intended to respond to the letter, but you needed to know whether or not he would be attending the meeting. At that point Dr.
Welsh informed you that he had confirmed his other plans for that day. Since you did not ask that Dr. Welsh send an alternate speaker from his staff, he concluded that a presentation about the School was not essential for your program.
The School has always been very responsive to requests for information about its programs. Earlier in September 1985, your organization had invited Dr. Welsh to discuss the School's programs at a seminar for parents being held at your headquarters. When Dr. Welsh indicated to the person inviting him that he would be out of town on that day, a replacement speaker was requested. Dr. Welsh then arranged for Miss Chris Baugh to address the parents about the programs at The Maryland School for the Blind. The School sends speakers to many seminars and meetings throughout the state every year, and we are always pleased to do so. I would suggest that you extend an invitation to Dr. Welsh again next year for your annual meeting as the best way to provide your members with the information about the School which you are requesting.
We are satisfied that The Maryland School for the Blind provides high quality instructional services for its students, as has been indicated by numerous contacts with its graduates and other parties who are aware of the School's activities.
Finally, Dr. Welsh enjoys the full confidence of the School's Board of Directors, the staff, the students, and their parents. He is well respected in the special education and rehabilitation communities both in Maryland and throughout the country and we are pleased and proud to have his leadership at the School.
Sincerely,
S. James Campbell President
Board of Directors
April 3, 1986
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
Mr. s. James Campbell, President Board of Directors
Maryland School for the Blind Baltimore, Maryland 21236-4499
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I have received your letter dated March 19, 1986, and I wonder if you really mean what you say. If you do, so be it. However, I find your letter quite remarkable. Let me show you what I mean.
I wrote a letter to Dr. Welsh, Superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind asking him to attend the convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. Several weeks passed. The response from Dr. Welsh finally arrived filled with argumentative questions. I called Dr. Welsh and asked him to come. He told me he would not be able to do so.
After some weeks of deliberation, I wrote to you. It seemed to me that there was something to be gained by an exchange of information between the School for the Blind and the organized blind of Maryland. You responded to me by saying that you thought Dr. Welsh is a well-respected man and that, perhaps, I would care to invite him to another convention next year. This may be the best that the School for the Blind can do, but I certainly hope not. If it is, then, the blind of Maryland will understand. We will understand that the School for the Blind is not willing to meet--and not even willing to discuss the possibility of meeting (as your letter puts it) until next year. We will understand that personnel at the School for the Blind believe it is quite proper to criticize the organized blind. On the other hand, we will also understand that the school for the blind is unwilling to face the possibility that the blind of Maryland may wish to raise questions about the operation of the school. In other words, the school believes that it may criticize the blind, but the blind may not raise questions with the school. I would point out that thus far, we have not had the opportunity to raise any questions, because we have not been able to induce individuals at the policy level to meet.
(As an aside, let me add that we, the organized blind of Maryland, do not object to full, free, and fair discussion of any topic--including the activities of the organized blind. It is worthy of note that the School for the Blind (a public institution) should expect to be subject to examination by the public. The School for the Blind, after all, was established to serve blind people. Surely, it is not unreasonable to expect blind people to seek information from it or make comments about it.)
We will understand that our only alternative is to try to gather information from secondhand sources. We will also understand that it may be in our best interest to take steps to change this relationship. It is our belief that responsiveness to public officials is more valuable than irresponsiveness.
As to the question whether Dr. Welsh is a well-respected man or not, I would point out that no one ever said he wasn't. The question in my letter to Dr. Welsh and to you was the same. Can we find a way to meet with officials of the School for the Blind to discuss programs available to blind Marylanders? We want to meet someone who is able to discuss programs at the policy level. We want to gain information and to determine whether we can (in good conscience) support the programs at the school. As my letter to you shows, we are willing to discuss these programs with anyone at the School for the Blind who is at a policy level.
In this letter I have tried to focus on only one subject. I have tried to avoid peripheral questions. In your letter you say that the School for the Blind has always been responsive to the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. It may not be a surprise for you to learn that I disagree with this statement.
You say that Dr. Welsh was invited to a meeting and that he sent a representative in his stead. I did not call such a meeting; I did not conduct it; and I did not attend it. Furthermore, the person you identified as representing the School for the Blind was not at the policy-making level. The purpose for inviting Dr. Welsh to the convention was to discuss programs at the school for the blind as they are not, and as they may become. I am still seeking such a meeting. The purpose of seeking this meeting remains the same. While it may be instructive to speak with a teacher at the School for the Blind, it cannot serve this purpose. If you hire a lawyer to provide you with significant services, you may find it instructive to speak with the secretary; but this cannot settle the case. Your statement about sending a representative to a meeting may be correct, but if it is, it does not speak to the responsiveness of the school for the blind to the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland.
The question I raised with you in my earlier letter still remains. Perhaps your answer to my question about a meeting is that next year there will be enough time. However, I hope that the School for the Blind will find a way to meet with the organized blind of Maryland.
Very truly yours,
Marc Maurer President
April 28, 1986
The Maryland School for the Blind Baltimore, Maryland 21236-4499
Mr. Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland 21229
Dear Mr. Maurer:
In my letter of March 19, I had suggested that you invite Dr. Richard Welsh to your next annual meeting since we had understood that you wished the membership of your organization to hear about the programs of the Maryland School for the Blind, and we understood that your membership met annually. I still believe that this is the best way to share our programs with your members.
As a part of its objectives for 1986, the School has plans to solicit feedback about its programs from its various constituencies including community groups of and for the blind. While the date has not yet been set, we are planning to provide a forum to which we would be happy to have you send a representative of your organization to hear about the School's programs and to provide whatever feedback you wish. We will contact you in the future regarding such a meeting.
Sincerely,
s. James Campbell President
Board of Directors
To Fight Discrimination
By Vanessa Lowery
(Note: Vanessa Lowery is a blind woman in Baltimore who has been working closely with Mary Ellen Reihing, President of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. The experiences outlined by Ms. Lowery in her letter are, all too often, part of daily life for a blind person seeking opportunity. Working through our Baltimore Chapter, we have started to change this story of frustrated ambitions to one of hopes realized.)
Phoenix, Maryland 21131
December 2, 1985
Mr. Stephen B. Sachs Attorney General Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Sachs,
My name is Vanessa Lowery, and I live at the above address. I am currently in the Graduate program at the University of Maryland School of Social Work and Community Planning, and I am in my first year of Field Placement at Associated Catholic Charities. I am also blind and guided dog user.
Please allow me to tell you about several cases of possible discrimination. I feel that my blindness and the fact that I am a guide dog user may have contributed to difficulties in fulfilling Field Placement requirements.
Each student in the graduate program is required to complete two school years of Field Placement in a Social Service agency.
It is not uncommon for students going into the field for the first time to be rejected by two or three agencies before being placed. There were three agencies that had valid reasons for rejecting me, but there were also nine agencies that made excuse after excuse for not taking me.
Starting in May of 1985, the Director of Field Placement Instruction, Dr. Nancy Bennett, made initial phone contacts with the agencies. This was normal procedure. She was only able to get as far as the initial contact with six of the agencies.
I do not know which agencies were involved, but I was told by Dr. Bennett that I would not be granted interviews either because of my blindness or because of the fact that I used a dog instead of a long cane.
The seventh agency was the Veterans Administration. I was informed by Dr. Bennett that there were signs of hope, but I was also denied an interview by them on the basis of my blindness- refer to the attached statement concerning the Veterans Administration by Mary Ellen Reihing from the National Federation of the Blind.
I will focus in detail on the remaining two agencies which I was able to contact after the initial contact was made by the university. The agencies were the Maryland School for the Blind and Lutheran Hospital.
On or about May 21, 1985, I spoke by phone with Ms. Rae Ginsberg and Ms. Paige Roemer from the Maryland School for the Blind. Both of them questioned me extensively about my career goals. I explained that I eventually hoped to work with disabled students in a university setting. I wanted to make sure that disabled students were being given the necessary support and services that would enable them to fulfill their course requirements.
There was some concern that I might not gain experience in my particular area of interest at the school, but I assured them
that the first-year placement was very generic in nature. I was supposed to gain experience in various aspects of social work. I then further explained that the school year placement would be more closely related to my area of interest.
This seemed to satisfy them, so an appointment was made for me to come in and be interviewed. On the following day, however, Ms. Ginsberg called me up and told me that she and Ms. Roemer had had further talks. They had decided that it would not be necessary for me to show up for the interview because it was felt that the setting at the school was "too clinical"--clinical refers to direct practice work with clients in which assessments are made and interventions are implemented. It is true that I
I do not have a strong interest in clinical social work, but I was not even given an opportunity to try. It was basically assumed that I could not handle that type of work.
I thought that it was odd that I was so thoroughly questioned during the first phone call. But I thought that that was a normal procedure. I was going into the field for the first time, and this was my first contact with an agency, so I did my best to answer the questions as honestly as possible. But after the interview was canceled, I realized that the phone conversation was the interview.
I also felt that Ms. Ginsberg felt threatened by my ideas concerning blindness. I referred to the students as visually impaired students. But she corrected me and stated that if I was placed at the school, I would soon be referring to the students as "people within the population who had special needs."
The Maryland School for the Blind could not have obtained sufficient data about me over the phone. Therefore, without the benefit of a face-to-face interview, I do not see how a fair assessment of my capacity to do the work could have been determined. The appointment had been made, so it should have been honored.
Furthermore, my attitude towards blindness should not have even been considered until I was interviewed. In other words, I felt that I was being judged according to my own ideas and attitudes as a blind person. I gathered that my personal experiences as a blind person did not match those of the school, so I was rejected before I could defend myself.
My desire is to see justice. Therefore, I feel that the filing of a Civil Rights complaint against the Maryland School for the Blind.... is in order. I feel that I was discriminated against because of the fact that I am blind and a guide dog user. Consider this letter to be the complaint.
I need to know what steps must be taken in order to pursue the complaint; therefore, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you in the near future.
Sincerely, Vanessa Lowery
NFB of Maryland Testifies for Minimum Wages
By Ron Metenyi
(Ron Metenyi is one of the Leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. For many years he has served as legislative chairman for our Maryland affiliate. When a bill to provide minimum wage protection for blind workers was introduced in the Maryland Senate, Ron Metenyi was there to testify in support. His testimony is cogent and incisive. Here is what he said.)
Statement Supporting Senate Bill 306--Minimum Wage Bill
When considering this proposal, two questions logically arise: 1. Does this measure address a clear and present danger?
2. What precedents might be set?
In addressing the first question I must say that the danger is very clear to hourly employees of Blind Industries of Maryland.
Is the danger present? No, not if one means by present, the next couple weeks or months. After that, there is no way to know.
Both state and federal law permit the Management of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland to pay production workers less than the minimum wage. Mr. Sanders, President of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, has stated, unequivocally, that he will not adopt that option. His successor is not bound by such a pledge.
Since a minimum wage policy was adopted in 1977, the Company's volume of business has increased fivefold. Also, productivity gains have been impressive: 20 percent, on average, for three consecutive years. We, the workers, believe that the fair market value of our labor is minimum wage plus. Mr. Sanders agrees. Statistics available from Company annual reports seem to confirm this. If you come to one of our plants and see what is going on, I believe you will agree as well. And if we were working in other factories, doing the same or similar work, we would, in the vast majority of cases, be protected by the minimum wage statute.
Now, consider a scenario. A new president heads the Company. Red ink shows up on the balance sheets. Management can handle that the easy way, or it can handle it the hard way. The easy way would be to squeeze money out of workers through givebacks, perhaps wage reduction, if the situation were serious, even wage reductions to sub-minimum wages. But the Company could go on the difficult, challenging, morally responsible route.
Management could look at equipment, procedures, marketing strategies, staff prerequisites and even salaries as well as pay and benefits for blind workers who are unlikely to find work elsewhere and therefore constitute a sort of captive work- force. This is the hard way.
Minimum wage statutes serve two desirable purposes: 1.
They protect the most vulnerable members of society from blatant exploitation in the workplace. 2. They force minimum discipline on all employees, even those with access to captive workforces. The employer can cut wages only so far. After that, the company has to start being creative. Mr. Sanders has imposed that minimum discipline upon himself with generally good results. His successors should have to live with that minimum discipline. They cannot credibly argue that good management cannot stay in business paying workers at Blind Industries minimum wages. We have proved ourselves. We, the workers, want protection and legal recognition of our dignity, work, and productive capacity.
When you ask what precedents might be set, you ask a question to which you have the answer. Our living body of law constantly undergoes examination, interpretation and alteration. At the state level, you are the prime movers in that process.
But consider that this bill is a very modest bill. It has no fiscal note; it requests nothing that does not exist yet; it applies to a very small number of people to whom it is very important.
Consider further that Blind Industries does not conform to the image of a sheltered shop, operating instead as a factory that employs many blind people. Workers at Blind Industries are required to turn out quality products. We are required to be productive and urgently expected to keep down waste and minimize size delays. My constituents are like Smith Barney: "They make money in the old-fashioned way. They earn it."
My co-workers and I are not people undergoing a few weeks or months of work-adjustment or training leading to outside employment. I came to Blind Industries and Services of Maryland in 1969 when it was called Maryland Workshop for the Blind. The people I worked with this morning are people I worked with in 1969. Most of us have worked here for many years. Most of us
have sought outside work without success. Like it or not, Blind Industries is our work home.
My constituents are proud, strong, self-reliant people.
Their families look to them to contribute substantially to the family economy by bringing home a paycheck meaningfully, if not bountifully related to the actual cost of living. If we were forced to work for subminimum wages, everyone would lose. The government would lose revenue. We would lose self-esteem. We would have to depend heavily on the safety net of government benefits which we would hate to have to do. Also, in view of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, in two or three years there might not be much safety net left.
Task Force On Discrimination Against The Blind
By Ron MetenyiThe 1986 Maryland General Assembly adopted House Joint Resolution Number 5--a bill to create a task force to study discrimination against the blind. Despite the White Cane Law, discrimination continues to occur. House Joint Resolution 5 was intended to give an opportunity to alter the laws so that discrimination against the blind cannot continue. When the bill came before the committee, the blind were there in force. Ron Metenyi presented the following testimony.
STATEMENT SUPPORTING JOINT RESOLUTION 5
In the early seventies, Eric Severeid, the sage of CBS, did a commentary on the "Quiet Revolution" or "Second Civil Rights Movement." The "Quiet Revolution," he said, is the effort of the blind and disabled to attain first-class citizenship. He pointed out that this effort is centered in state capitals and in the lives of individual achievers everywhere.
In the early seventies the "Quiet Revolution" came to Maryland beginning with enactment of the White Cane Law, the bill of rights of the blind, in 1971. Since then, you have acted twice to strengthen this law: once, in 1973, to spell out the rights of dog-guide users, and again in 1983 to strengthen the deterrent factor by changing the penalty for violation from a
$50.00 fine to a $500.00 fine. Also, you enacted landmark civil rights legislation forbidding discrimination against any disabled citizen in employment, public housing, and public accommodation, plus legislation strengthening the Human Relations Commission. An the National Federation of the Blind actively supported each piece of proposed legislation in the "Second Civil Rights Movement." We, the blind, and our elected representatives
forged a vital partnership. Both we and they have been, and continue to be, committed to assuring the blind equal access to opportunity.
Instances of discrimination against the blind still occur all too often--instances as mundane as denying a blind person the opportunity to participate in a guided tour available to the general public--instances as profound as denying a qualified blind person the opportunity to prove himself or herself on a job. I have been subjected to such treatment, and I know many other blind people who have been similarly victimized.
What can we do to bring the "Quiet Revolution" to completion? This proposed task force represents exciting prospects and real opportunities for us all.
Doubtless you remember the Apollo moon missions. The men were first launched into orbit, then placed into translunar injection, committed to a 250,000-mile journey from the earth to the moon. About midway through the transit some mid-course corrections were always made. These corrections were modest, but they were absolutely essential. Without them, the men would certainly not have landed on the moon and would probably have been consigned to the eternal night of deep space. Well, it is mid-course corrections time; for the journey is long from where we, the blind have been to where we, the blind, intend to be.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, "No white man can be truly free so long as one black man remains unfree. And no black man can be truly free so long as one white man remains unfree." I respectfully submit that this is equally true of the blind and the sighted.
Selling Federationism In Sligo Creek
By Lloyd Rasmussen
The Sligo Creek Chapter is continuing to sell the NFB philosophy to new members and guests in the Washington suburban area. Our largest group ever went to Annapolis, on January 15.
Many of us were out selling nuts and candy bars this fal1, in what is becoming a Sligo Creek Chapter tradition. Thanks to Giant Foods, we had several good locations for weekend sales.
Many members also were able to sell some of our merchandise, in addition to NFB of Maryland raffle tickets, at work. Through several fundraising projects, we raised close to $1500 for the chapter, much of which has been donated to the NFB of Maryland.
Judy Rasmussen and Debbie Barber of the Northern Virginia Chapter delivered our new Bob Hope public service announcements to several television stations in Washington, D.C.
Our PR committee has also been discussing ways of alerting people to the significance of the white cane and dog guide.
A bake sale and other fundraising projects are being planned for later this spring.
We hope to bring a sizable contingent to the National Convention in Kansas City.
Keep Marching on Washington
By Patricia Maurer
For three days, members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland worked, along with other Federationists, to contact our Congressmen and Senators on The Hill. It is imperative that we step up our efforts to make contacts by telephone and letter. Those thousands of us who attended the March on Washington will know we dealt with three issues: Revenue Forgone, Airline Discrimination, and Insurance Discrimination. Mr. Gashel wrote an excellent fact sheet which we gave each Congressman and Senator during the march. The fact sheets are available from the National Office. Let me briefly outline the issues and our requests of Congress:
-
Congress must ensure stability of postal rates for nonprofit organizations. The appropriations must be sufficient to meet Revenue Forgone expenses of the United States Postal Services for handling mailings for non-profit organizations sent at reduced postal rates. If the National Federation of the Blind was unable to mail at the reduced rates, we could not spread the word to thousands of blind people and to the general public.
-
The Congress must bring about fair treatment of the blind in air travel. We are asking for a Congressional probe of airline practices which discriminate against the blind by means of restrictions imposed upon the blind under the guise of federal procedures. There are hundreds of examples of airline discrimination. We have read about them in the Monitor. Most of us have stories of our own. Let us tell the Congress these stories and bring this discrimination to an end.
-
Congress should enact the Fair Insurance Coverage Act to prohibit unfair discrimination in insurance based on blindness. The proposal seeks a federal ban on extra premiums and denial of insurance coverage faced by the blind. The existing law does not provide such protection for anyone. Although 35 states have passed state laws, insurance discrimination still exists. We need a comprehensive federal policy.
Call or write to your Congressman. telephone by calling (202) 224-3121. listed below. Remember, your letters
Congresswoman Helen Bently
1610 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congressman Parren Mitchell
2367 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congresswoman Majorie Holt
2412 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congressman Stenny Hoyer
1513 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congressman Michael Barns
401 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Congresswoman Beverly Byron
1216 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Senator Paul Sarbanes
332 Dirksen Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Charles Mathias
387 Russel Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Cumberland Chapter President Honored
Allegany Community College
Office of Admissions, Registration, and Student Services
Cumberland, Maryland 21502
January 24, 1986
Mr. Ronald L. Burns Cumberland, Maryland 21502
Dear Ronald:
I am pleased to verify your nomination to the 1986 edition of Who's Who Among Students in American Junior Colleges.
You were nominated by the faculty of the College based upon criteria consisting of scholarship, contribution to the College or program, and good citizenship.
We at Allegany Community College (ACC) feel honored to have students like you as part of our student body.
The College is in no way connected with the Randall Company
nor are you committed to any purchase through the company.
You will receive a certification during the Awards Banquet this spring.
Again congratulations!
Sincerely,
J. M. Snider, Dean Student Services
JMS:bac
Who's Who Among Students
In American Junior Colleges Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35403
January 22, 1986
Mr. Ronald L. Burns Cumberland, Maryland 21502
Dear Mr. Burns:
I am privileged to inform you that you are one of 24 students nominated by Allegany Community College for inclusion in the 1986 edition of WHO'S WHO AMONG STUDENTS IN AMERICAN JUNIOR COLLEGES.
A recognized institution of the American academic community, this WHO'S WHO award is conferred annually upon outstanding student leaders. Over the past fifty-two years more than 1400 senior colleges have adopted this program as part of their annual campus honors. Selections are made by campus nominating committees and are based on decidedly above-average academic standing, community service, leadership ability and potential for continued success.
As documentary evidence and recognition of this honor, a certificate will be presented to you by your college later this year. And, as a lifetime WHO'S WHO member, you are eligible to use the Reference Service maintained for the exclusive assistance of nominees seeking postgraduate employment, fellowships or admission to the various voluntary service organizations. There is never any charge for these services.
On behalf of the WHO'S WHO program, I would like to congratulate you on your outstanding work and on receiving this highly coveted award. We look forward to presenting your accomplishments in the 1986 edition of WHO'S WHO AMONG STUDENTS IN AMERICAN JUNIOR COLLEGES.
Sincerely,
H. Pettus Randall Director
Parents' Workshop Held
By Barbara Cheadle
On March 1, the newly organized Parents of Blind Children's Division of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland held a Parents Workshop in our headquarters at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. The theme of the workshop was "Getting the Most Out of Our Child's Education." Several new parents came and many who had attended the October seminar came back for this one, too.
We had an attorney from the Maryland Disability Law Center speak on federal/state laws and regulations. A representative from special education in Baltimore County assisted in the workshop session on developing Individualized Education Plans (IEP).
Debbie Briddel, a Federationist and teacher of blind children, came in from Delaware to help with these sessions on communication skills on the teaching of Braille and sessions on pre-school blind children. Many other Federationists also attended and shared their experiences and our National Federation of the Blind philosophy with parents. Marc Maurer, our State President, gave an excellent presentation about why parents of blind children cannot expect anyone else to know more, or care more, about their child and his/her future than they do. Like blind adults, parents cannot let professionals, even those with good intentions, decide what is best for them. Before parents can exercise their rights; they have to know what they want for their child. That is where the National Federation of the Blind comes in, helping parents understand blindness and advocating for their child.
The workshop was truly a working session in another way too.
Sharon Maneki discussed the Education of Blind Children Legislation that we are supporting, and everyone addressed their letters to the Senators right there. Many parents at the seminar could personally attest to the need for this legislation. More than one parent present had encountered great resistance in their efforts to get Braille and special instructors for their children.
The afternoon was wrapped up with our Sweetheart Winter Get Away Raffle drawing and a discussion of why we parents have organized.
Our raffle for a weekend prize for two at the Hyatt Regency in Baltimore, with dinner and champagne and flowers, was our first fund raiser and a very successful one. We raised over
$500.00. The winning ticket was sold by Stan Griffin, husband of Chris Griffin, the President of our Parents Division.
The wrap-up of our Parents Division Seminar led to the unanimous decision to hold another seminar in the fall.
Funding The Movement New Ideas New Challenges
The NFB of Maryland turns twenty this year. Throughout our history we've been fortunate to have leaders who've raised the Federation in Maryland from infancy to maturity. As the work
we do expand, our need for funding also grows. It's a challenge to come up with new ways to get the money we need to improve conditions for the blind, but we're up to the task.
At its February meeting, our board adopted two new funding ideas. We will be publishing a commemorative souvenir booklet at the time of our 1986 convention. Individuals and companies throughout Maryland will have the opportunity to publicize themselves in its pages. In return, they will donate to the Federation. Sharon Maneki is heading up the project. Details will soon be sent to every chapter. Contact Sharon at 992-9608 for further information. The second fundraising idea adopted by the Board is the Pick Three Drawing. Our first effort with this fundraising effort was successful. Tickets were sold for twenty one dollars ($21.00) entitling the purchaser to 26 chances to win fifty dollars ($50.00). Twenty-one people won. This method of fundraising will be used to raise more money in the months ahead.
NFB of Maryland Scholarships
By Al Maneki
The NFB OF Maryland awarded three scholarships to three outstanding students for the 1986 school year. The recipients were Donald Combs, Ronnie Burns, and James Storey. Donald is a junior at Western Maryland College. Ronnie is a sophomore at Allegheny Community College. James is also a sophomore, but he attends Frostburg State College. We wish our recipients every success, and I am sure that we will be hearing more from these fine gentlemen.
The NFB of Maryland hopes to award three larger scholarships for the 1987 school year. We hope to award scholarships of
$1,000.00, $700.00, and $500.00. Anyone who wants an application can contact me at 992-9608. Let's spread the word about both our state and national scholarships. Let's get out and raise the necessary funds, too.
Central Maryland Chapter Report
By Sharon Maneki
The Central Maryland Chapter continues to be an active growing chapter. During the past months, we participated in an AARP flea market to make a little money and to let senior citizens and the general public know of our work. We also held two successful bake sales in Laurel and Ellicott City.
We developed a new working relationship with the Vision Center at the Columbia Medical Plan. After Darlene Chokski and Mary Ann Spalt attended one of our meetings, they agreed to tell their patients about the NFB. Thanks to Darlene and Mary Ann, we have a new member, Catherine Wright. We look forward to finding more new members with their help.
The following officers were elected for 1986. President, Sharon Maneki; Vice President, Dorothy Weaver; Secretary, Brenda Mueller; treasurer, Beth Schuster; Board members, Tony Fallon and Myrtle Long.
The chapter has a standing invitation to speak to the Introduction to Special Education class at Towson University which is taught by Dr. Barry Freeman. This gives us an excellent opportunity to reach teachers who may have a blind student in their class either now or in the future. We welcome this opportunity and will continue to look for other ways to spread our Federation philosophy.
1986 Legislative Agenda
By Sharon Maneki
The 1986 Legislative Program of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland focuses on discrimination. We hope to eliminate discrimination in insurance by asking the Maryland General Assembly to adopt the model language supported by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. This language was developed by a task force composed of the National Federation of the Blind and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
We also hope to lessen discrimination by improving the quality of education available to blind children. Our proposals call for every legally blind child to have the opportunity for instruction in Braille reading and writing to enable the child to communicate effectively. The law should guarantee parents the rights to participate as equal partners in the development of their children's educational program.
Then, there is the White Cane Law. We want the Legislature to amend the White Cane Law so that both civil and criminal actions may be taken against someone who discriminates against a blind person. Our bill asks the legislature to establish a Task Force to study enforcement and other problems with the White Cane Law
Having a legislative agenda is the easy part. Convincing the legislators of the agenda's merit takes work.
We are making excellent progress in convincing legislators
to support our program. Once again, through our exhibits, we showed legislators blind people playing chess and scrabble, frying donut holes and making crab mallets. The Thiel printer was also demonstrated. Convincing legislators to play blackjack with a blind dealer was great fun.
An examination of the list of sponsors for our bills and their location throughout the state shows the depth of support that we are gaining as an organization.
HB447 dealt with Insurance; the Sponsor was Delegate Casper Taylor of Cumberland. The companion insurance bill in the senate is SB815, sponsored by Senator Dennis Rasmussen of Baltimore County.
HB721 deals with guaranteeing the Minimum Wage for workers at Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, sponsored by Delegate Virginia Thomas of Columbia. The Minimum Wage companion bill in the Senate is SB306, sponsored by Senator George Della of Baltimore city.
HB 1239 deals with the education needs of blind children sponsored by Delegate Frank Pesci from Prince George's county. The companion education bill in the Senate is SB858, sponsored by Senator Frederick Malkus from the Eastern Shore.
HB1400 and HJRS deal with strengthening our White Cane Law.
These measures are sponsored by Delegate Elijah Cummings of Baltimore City.
At the time of this writing the Minimum Wage bill was passed by the senate and awaits passage by the House. The insurance bill passed the House and is awaiting passage by the Senate. We look forward to continued success and the enactment of all of our bills into law.
How To Make A Bad Situation Worse
By Sharon Maneki
The Governor's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped is supposed to promote employment opportunities for handicapped persons. One of the Committee's legislative proposals, creation of a Medical Advisory Board for the Department of Personnel, has exactly the opposite effect. The Department of Personnel has a dismal record of offering job opportunities to qualified blind people, but this proposal will only make a bad situation worse.
The NFBM helped to kill a similar proposal in the 1985 legislative session. We are once again leading the opposition to this proposal in the 1986 legislative session. Some of the testimony presented against this bill follows.
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
January 21, 1986
Attn: Finance Committee Senate of Maryland
My name is W. Harold Bleakley. I am the President of a Baltimore-based, national company marketing aids and appliances for the blind, deaf, and physically disabled. My employment background includes school psychologist at Pittsburg
School for the Blind, Director of Rehabilitation Services for the Blind for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Executive Director of two major, private, non-profit agencies for the blind, and
twenty-eight years in top management in private business. I have been blind since the age of 9.
It is my understanding that Senate Bill 239 proposes to create a medical advisory board to the Maryland State Department of Personnel. I understand that the purpose of the board would be to review the application of disabled persons seeking employment with the State of Maryland and to review the cases of state employees who become disabled to determine whether they are able to perform the job in question.
Even though it is well-known that the Maryland Department of
Personnel discriminated against blind, deaf, and physically disabled persons with respect to employment by the State of Maryland, I am presenting this testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 239.
The establishment of the medical advisory board will not solve the problem. It will create an expenditure on unnecessary funds and will probably make the problem of employment discrimination against blind people even more severe than it is now.
While it is true that competent ophthalmologists do
understand diseases of the eye and in many instances are able
To correct the medical problems involved, it is also true that, in general, ophthalmologists know nothing about the abilities of blind people to function effectively in employment, school, in the home, or in the community. As a matter of fact, ophthalmologists, in general, know very little about the rehabilitation services commonly needed by blind people. Consequently, if S239 were enacted, the case folders of blind employment applicants would be reviewed by unknowledgeable people with decision-making power. This is to say nothing about the general negative social attitudes of most people toward blindness. Add negative social attitudes to basic lack of knowledge, and the attempt of the legislature to solve the problem through the passage of SB239, and the result would be aggravation of the problem-not solutions.
No bureau, commission, or advisory board is ever established
without fiscal implication. Consequently, tax dollars would be spent to make a problem worse, not better. •
If the medical advisory board will not help to solve the problem, what alternative do we have? There are two alternatives. First, the decision-makers in the Maryland Department of Personnel need to educate themselves concerning the abilities that blind persons have, the alternative techniques available for effective functioning and the thousands of jobs being carried out successfully by blind people across the country. Such education would go a long way toward counteracting current negative social attitudes and even further in the opening of employment doors for qualified blind people.
The second alternative, which should be combined with the alternative described above, is so clear that it should stand without question. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap on the part of recipients of federal financial assistance. Section
504 covers employment. The State of Maryland, including the Personnel Department, is a recipient of federal financial assistance and therefore is required to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 states that a qualified handicapped person, with respect to employment, is one who can perform the essential functions of the job in question with reasonable accommodation. I respectfully suggest that the legislature should insist that the Maryland Department of Personnel come into strict compliance with Section 504. This would solve the problem without additional cost.
The steps that need to be taken to prevent employment discrimination against blind applicants are the same steps that should be taken as a matter of good personnel practice, whether the applicant is disabled or not--clear definition of the essential functions of each job objective, screening, testing (where tests are given to all applicants), and an impartial examination of the qualifications of the applicant in relation to the essential functions required for the job.
What about reasonable accommodation? There is a general misconception that this includes reduction in productivity. It does not. Also, there is the misconception that reasonable accommodation is costly; it is not. In many instances, blind employees require no accommodation. In other instances, some accommodation is necessary. In order to obtain hard data
concerning the cost of reasonable accommodation, a national study was conducted three or four years ago by Berkeley Associates. The results show that in most instances where reasonable accommodation is necessary, the cost is less than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
In closing, I would like to cite one example (thousands of other examples are available), in which medical judgment destroyed the career of a qualified blind individual. Raymond Rife became legally blind as a youngster. He graduated from high school and college with a degree in therapeutic recreation. He went to work in the Recreation Department for the City of Philadelphia, where he was employed for twenty-two years, during which time he received excellent reviews and was promoted. In the early 1970's, Mayor Rizzo of Philadelphia decided that all city employees should have medical exams, including eye examinations. Mr. Rife was examined by the ophthalmologist appointed by the mayor to conduct eye examinations. The eye report was completed and, of course, indicated that Mr. Rife was legally blind. However, the ophthalmologist, in his own handwriting, wrote across the bottom of the report, "This man is blind and cannot work." The following Friday, Mr. Rife was terminated from his job on the basis of the ophthalmologist's statement that he could not work. He lost the job he had held successfully for twenty-two years as a blind person. He presented his case to the mayor and other appropriate authorities without success. He never worked again.
The passage of Senate Bill 239, in my judgment, will not solve the problem. It probably will aggravate the problem and certainly will spend money unnecessarily. Let's simply insist that the Maryland Department of Personnel adhere strictly to the mandates of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. There is one final question that needs to be looked into before carrying SB239 further. The question is whether the Personnel Department would, in and of itself, be illegal and considered in
violation of Section 504.
W. Harold Bleakley
Protecting Our Right To Serve
By Sharon Maneki
For many years, Federationists throughout the nation fought and continued to fight for the right to serve on a jury. This right is well-established for the blind of Maryland. Two or three years ago, our National President, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, had jury duty and was selected to deliberate a case. During the past year, some Federationists that had jury duty were Patricia Maurer, Shirley Trexler, and Arthur Segal. Al Maneki had jury duty both in 1979 and 1985.
As Federationists know, gaining a right is only half the battle. We must make sure that we maintain our gains and protect the rights we have achieved. To protect our right to serve on a jury, the following amendment was suggested to the House Judiciary Committee of the Maryland General Assembly.
January 31, 1986
To the Members of the House Judiciary Committee
From the Members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
Amendment to HB59
The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is an organization of blind consumers. Our goal is equality for blind people. Since equality means both equal rights and equal responsibilities, HB59, a bill concerning jury selection, is a concern for this organization.
Jury service is both a privilege and a civic duty. The purpose of HB59, introduced by Delegate Dennis Donaldson, is to increase the size of the pool of available names for jury selection. The bill permits municipalities to use the driver’s license lists that are maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a source of names for selection. Municipalities would gain an additional source of names because they will use both the voting lists and drivers' license lists. Members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland believe that the purpose of this legislation will be better achieved if the bill is amended as follows:
The Department of Motor Vehicles supplies Age of Majority Cards as a source of identification for individuals who do not drive. The bill should be amended to permit the use of Age of Majority Card lists as well as drivers' license lists, as sources for jury selection. Since the names on Age of Majority Card lists should not be on drivers' license lists, this amendment will enlarge the pool for possible jurors. Members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland favor and recommend such a change in HB59, to avoid exclusion of the blind from possible jury selection. The blind of Maryland has a long successful history of jury service. This amendment will enable blind people to continue to perform their civic responsibilities. Blind people recognize that equal rights demand equal responsibilities. The blind are ready, willing, and able to serve on a jury. Thank you.
Sharon Maneki, Chairman Legislative Committee
National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
RESOLUTION 8581
WHEREAS, despite expenditures of several million dollars each year, the Maryland Division of Vocational Rehabilitation provides almost no service to the blind clients it was established to serve; and
WHEREAS, the principal objective of rehabilitation ought to be competitive remunerative employment; however, this beneficial mission of rehabilitation has become subverted by a psycho-social philosophy of evaluation and testing, the result being that relatively few blind people actually benefit by obtaining competitive jobs through the assistance of rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the existence of this program and its public pronouncements falsely lead the public to believe that the needs of blind people are being met; and
WHEREAS, the Maryland Division of Vocational Rehabilitation officiously interferes with the lives of blind people, using as a club its power to withdraw rehabilitation support if blind clients do not take the "advice" of rehabilitation personnel; and
WHEREAS, this practice inhibits aspirations and stifles the progress of blind people; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this second day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that this organization take all steps necessary, through the legislative process and otherwise, to dismantle programs for the blind within the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department of Education; and .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization calls upon the Maryland Legislature to adopt legislation establishing a program within the Department of Employment and Training which would provide all blind Marylanders whose employment or prospects for employment it would enhance the following services: 1) financial assistance for post-secondary education, including payments of tuition, fees, books, room, board, transportation, equipment, maintenance, and reader service; 2) financial assistance to obtain orientation and adjustment services from an institution (inside or outside Maryland) chosen by the blind client; 3) financial assistance to obtain and maintain employment, including the purchase of equipment or the provision of reader service; 4) administration of the vending facilities program established to provide employment to blind persons.
RESOLUTION 8582
WHEREAS, Congress, in 1974, established Supplementary Security Income (SSI) to provide a bare subsistence for aged, blind, and disabled persons having little or no income; and
WHEREAS, many states supplement federal SSI benefits, many states provide optional supplements to SSI benefits; and
WHEREAS, providing a supplement to SSI for the blind has the following desirable results:
-
It can alleviate extraordinary hardship (for example, it can enable a blind homeowner with a meager income to stay in his or her home),
-
It can pay for readers, secretarial services, and transportation needed by blind persons who are preparing for employment, and or, systematically seeking gainful employment; and
WHEREAS, only 500 blind Marylanders would be eligible for this proposed supplement; therefore, the fiscal impact upon the state of providing this supplement would be minimal; and
WHEREAS, this organization has long worked with the General Assembly and the Governor in an ongoing effort to establish a supplement to SSI for the blind, now, therefore.
BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the National Federation of the Blind, in convention assembled in the City of Ocean City, Maryland this 2nd day of November 1985; that we vigorously
reaffirm our long-standing commitment to establishing a supplement to SSI for the blind; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to all gubernatorial candidates and to all members of the Maryland General Assembly.
RESOLUTION 8583
WHEREAS, the opportunity to work is both a right and a basic human need; and
WHEREAS, seventy percent of the blind who are able to work are unemployed because of discrimination caused by the myths and misconceptions about blindness; and
WHEREAS, the Maryland State Department of Personnel is responsible for filling many job vacancies and can increase employment opportunities for blind Marylanders; and
WHEREAS, although the proposal to create a medical advisory board to determine whether handicapped applicants could perform specific jobs was defeated in the 1985 Maryland General Assembly, it may be adopted through the administrative rule making process; and
WHEREAS, this scheme would be another barrier to blind people seeking employment; and
WHEREAS, the Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) program, operated by the National Federation of the Blind in partnership with the United States Department of Labor, is a more positive solution to the unemployment of the blind because it demonstrates capabilities by using the experiences of successfully employed blind people; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this second day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that this organization opposes the creation of regressive layers of bureaucracy such as the medical advisory board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization urges the Maryland State Department of Personnel to work with Job Opportunities for the Blind by: sending all job vacancy announcements to Job Opportunities for the Blind; conducting joint reviews of all job descriptions; and promoting discussions between state employers and Job Opportunities for the Blind to destroy the myths and misconceptions about blindness and to demonstrate the capabilities of the blind.
RESOLUTION 8584
WHEREAS, education in colleges and vocational schools offers blind students an opportunity to gain the skills necessary for gainful employment; and
WHEREAS, Catonsville Community College has established a special program for blind students and, as a result, many blind students attend Catonsville Community College; and
WHEREAS, though it was ostensibly established to increase opportunities for blind students it actually stifles initiative
by creating an artificial environment and depriving blind students of valuable experience in dealing with the problems they will face after leaving school; and
WHEREAS, the meddlesome and custodial activities of this program include screening readers for blind students; determining what shall be read, what will be read, how it will be read, and when and where reading will take place; interfering
with the relationship between blind students and their instructors; and
WHEREAS, This disrespect was graphically demonstrated when program administrators proposed that students turn over part of their financial aid grants to pay for the cost of operating the special program and the "suggestion" was withdrawn only after administrators learned the proposal was illegal; and
WHEREAS, some blind students at Catonsville Community College have submitted a proposal which deals with the symptoms of the problem
but does not address its root cause; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this third day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that we call upon Catonsville Community College to abolish this special program for blind students.
RESOLUTION 8505
WHEREAS, Braille is a vital communications medium for the blind; and
WHEREAS, there is an alarming decrease in the availability of a wide variety of Braille materials, and
WHEREAS, the lack of these materials prevents the blind from taking advantage of opportunities available to the general public; and
WHEREAS, the best way that this despicable downward trend can be reversed is for the blind of Maryland to stimulate the production of these materials; and
WHEREAS, a successful vehicle for accomplishing this purpose is the establishment and stimulation of Braille Action Committees; and
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the National Association to Promote the Use of Braille {NAPUB) to have a Braille Action Committee in every state of the union; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this second day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that this organization form and vigorously support the activities of a state-wide Braille Action Committee; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Committee report on its
activities at the annual convention, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President appoint members of the Committee in consultation with local Chapter Presidents.
RESOLUTION 8506
WHEREAS, the Maryland Human Relations Commission is charged with investigating and resolving discrimination against the handicapped; and
WHEREAS, the Commission lacks the expertise about blindness to be able to successfully deal with employment discrimination against the blind; and
WHEREAS, the Commission even failed to understand the need to strengthen the Maryland White Cane Law, having opposed our efforts in the 1985 Session of the Maryland General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the operating procedures of the Commission such as, its short statute of limitations and the nonexistence of procedures to investigate industry-wide discrimination practices, weakens its ability to adequately combat discrimination; and
WHEREAS, blind Marylanders have marketable skills and actively look for work, yet remain unemployed due to discrimination; and
WHEREAS, employment discrimination is widespread and exists in all areas; and
WHEREAS, the following practices of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company {BG&E), although not yet brought before the Commission, are one example of the rampant discrimination blind people face: 1) BG&E advertised job openings for computer programmers in the October 22nd edition of the Baltimore Sun, yet refused to provide applications or grant interviews to qualified blind computer programmers: 2) BG&E refused to allow blind people to enter its customer training program; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention assembled this second day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that this organization urges the Commission to work with us to take immediate action with respect to Baltimore Gas and Electric; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization urges the Commission to consult with us on a regular basis on all discrimination against the blind; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization requests that
The Commission supports our efforts to strengthen the Maryland White Cane Law.
RESOLUTION 8507
WHEREAS, the right to a free and appropriate education for blind and handicapped children is guaranteed under public law 94142; and
WHEREAS, in Maryland the educational rights of handicapped
children are further delineated and explained by the Maryland Code Education Article 8-401 et seq and the code of Maryland Regulations 13A.05.01 et seq; and
WHEREAS, in many instances Maryland regulations meet or
exceed federal requirements, they fall short in these instances:
A. they do not specify that parents must be notified of the purpose, time, and location of Individual Education Programs (IEP) meetings and who shall be in attendance and that parents have a right to bring other people to the meeting, B. They do not specify that parents be notified of those who will be attending the child's Admission Review and Dismissal (ARD) meeting; C. they do not clearly state that parents shall be equal partners in educational decisions affecting their child; and
WHEREAS, the failure to include these provisions in Maryland laws and regulations has acted to discourage parents from becoming fully involved in decisions affecting their children and has created confusion for those parents who have attempted to participate in decision making; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland in Convention assembled this second day of November 1985, in the City of Ocean City, Maryland, that this organization do whatever is necessary to ensure that these problems are remedied; including proposing regulatory changes and/or legislation in the Maryland General Assembly.
Spectator Specs
Deaths
Howard Cable, the husband of Anna Cable, our oldest member, passed away early in February.
Employed
Debbie Martinez now has full-time employment as a medical transcriptionist at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Computer Programmer
Michael Book, one of our newest members, is a computer programmer with the Navy.
European Performance
Evelyn Saile is singing with a new Washington area chorus which will be performing in eastern Europe for two weeks this summer.
Talking Computer Available
A talking IBM PC is now available to the public at the Montgomery County subregional library, which has moved to 6400 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda.
Elected
Judy Rasmussen, after four years as vice president, has been elected to a position on the board of Directors of Volunteers for the Visually Handicapped, a local service agency. Leslie Johnson is also on board.
Braille Action Committee
The Braille Action Committee was formed on January 12, 1986. The members of this committee are Kathy Burnside, Carol Siegel, Mary Ellen Reihing, Pat Gormley, Shirley Trexler, Arlene Gashel, Patricia Maurer, Barbara Cheadle, Judy Rasmussen, Carol Shepherdson, Ronnie Burns, and Brenda Mueller.
Elected
Raymond Lowder has been elected Chairman of the Frankford Avenue Improvement Center.
Job Opportunity Found
Brenda Williams found employment as a switchboard operator at the Veteran's Administration Hospital on Loch Raven Boulevard.