THE BRAILLE MONITOR

(Guide 4, Guides to Professional Conduct, 1980 Year Book, page 336; Guide 4 (b). Guides to Professional Conduct, Society of Actuaries, 1980 Year Book, page 41.)

Obviously, if Lincoln National elects to somehow characterize the data as an "actuarial report" etcetera, we believe it would be appropriate to have a qualified actuary so certify.

Failure on the part of Lincoln National to provide such certification results in the obvious conclusion that the data is simply some numbers attached to a lawyer's memorandum.

In addition, we request that the Washington Insurance Department utilize the services of the State Actuary in this matter. We believe he will concur with our conclusion that the data is just that, and not an "actuarial report."

The point of the preceding discussion is to emphasize that the only stature the data has, is as a collection of numbers, and as we shall show, not much else from a relevance standpoint.

Page 3 of the Yahne memo suggests the American Council of Life Insurance can confirm through an actuarial report that blind insureds experience a greater frequency of disability than sighted insureds. We do not believe such an actuarial report by the ACLI exists. Even if such report exists, we do not believe that the ACLI, through its actuarial report or other statistics, can show that "bonafide statistical differences... have been substantiated" between blind insureds and sighted insureds for the risk at issue, namely disability. If they do, we hereby request that Lincoln National arrange to provide such report to you with a copy to us and Mr. Lewis. Failure by Lincoln National to provide the report, of course, confirms our position that this statement is pure conjecture and thus supports our position that Lincoln has not met its statutory burden of proof.

At the same place in the memo, Yahne says that "these statistics have been confirmed by other carriers and independent authors." We do not believe other carriers and independent authors can provide an actuarial report or other statistics which show that "bonafide statistical differences . . have been substantiated" between blind insureds and sighted insureds for the risk at issue, namely disability. If they do, we hereby request Lincoln National to make such reports available. Failure by Lincoln National to provide the reports, of course, confirms our position that this statement is pure conjecture and supports our conclusion that Lincoln has not met its statutory burden of proof.

Having concluded 1) that Lincoln National has the statutorily imposed burden of proof to show that "bonafide differences. . .have been substantiated" as to the risk of disability for blind insureds when compared to sighted insureds; 2) that Lincoln National has not provided an actuarial report or document, but merely a "nice collection of numbers"; 3) that Lincoln National has not (and we believe cannot) provide supporting data from either the ACLI or other insurers or authors (Even if provided, the satutory criteria will continue to be the measure of the relevance of such data, namely "bonafide statistical differences. . .have been substantiated.") we turn to a direct analysis of Lincoln National's "nice collection of numbers."

In LNL 1954 - 74 Mortality Study, Lincoln suggests that it used 1,854 years of exposure issued for a 20 year period ending in 1973 and traced to policy anniversary in 1974. Assuming the average insured life was covered for 15 years, we begin by noting the study uses only 120 lives. For an entity with more than $4 billion in assets and more than $300 million in annualized ordinary life premiums,¹ using 120 insured lives as a basis for a nationwide policy of a refusal to issue a waiver clause is, of course, ludicrous.

This deficiency surfaces throughout the study. For example, Lincoln, in its study, says "Blind insured lives rated as increased risks for the Life benefit showed a risk of death 38 percent (Lincoln National shows true creativity here. Eight deaths compared with 7.124 anticipated deaths shows a risk of death 12 percent higher, not 38 percent higher.) higher than anticipated."

Closer reading of this dramatic figure shows that 8 deaths occurred against an anticipated 7.124. We wonder what dramatic conclusion would be stated had only 6 deaths occurred in this category. Certainly Lincoln National would have conceded the case! (This analysis, of course, compels us to request that Lincoln National answer whether blind insureds showed a lower risk of death in categories not discussed in the study.)

In other categories, 14 actual deaths compared to 7.019 anticipated, 10 actual deaths compared to 4.578 anticipated, and 3.46 to an anticipated 3 underscores the lack of raw data and the inherent lack of reliability. Imagine a nationwide enterprise predicating policy on "compelling" data such as 3.46 lives to 3 lives anticipated or upon 8 actual lives to 7.019 anticipated! We suggest no statistician would ever certify that such meager data "substantiates... bonafide statistical differences."

But meager and insufficient data is not the worst of it. As discussed earlier, the insurer's risk in a waiver clause is disability, not death. All of the data provided by Lincoln relates to increased risk of death and has absolutely nothing to do with an increased risk of disability for blind insureds. Lincoln though, has no trouble hurdling this fatal gap. Without an iota of data it concludes:

Where the risk of mortality is found to be increased,. . .the risk of disability and hospitalization can reasonably be inferred to be increased also.

Based on data that we believe no statistician and certainly no professional actuary would certify as "substantiat(ing) . . . bonafide statistical differences" in increased risk of death, Lincoln National, with a written sentence and no data, hurdles right on through to conclude it all shows an increased risk of disability.

You see, Lincoln National has no data on the point. That is the tragedy of this case, that is the factor that makes this file, yes even this case, an outrage. An outrage against the state of Washington, against the legislature that enacted these statutory provisions, against the blind who are—without any supporting data—the victims of speculation—speculation that does not even by the wildest of imaginations, meet this statutorily required criteria. Lincoln National has no data because it has never issued waiver of premium clauses to the blind and therefore could not have any data.

Lincoln National has reservations about this file because to prevail, it must argue that even though it has no data on this issue, that even though there exists a total absence of data, it somehow has shown by inference, (of all things) that "bonafide statistical differences. . .have been substantiated."

Conclusion

Either Lincoln National is prepared to certify and state that what they have provided "substantiates . . . bonafide difference" in the increased risk of disability or they are not. We challenge Lincoln National to so certify. In his memo, Yahne says the data "tends to show." Under the applicable statute, "tends to show" is not good enough; "substantiates" is the key language. By its own admission, Lincoln has not met the burden. We challenge them to provide similar substantiation by ACLI, and by "other carriers and authors." We challenge Lincoln National to answer whether its study showed categories where the blind had better than anticipated experience.

Our analysis shows unequivocally on its face, that an order in favor of Lewis and against Lincoln is compelled by the record.

Very truly yours,
James H. Omvig, Chairman
Committee on Insurance Discrimination
National Federation of the Blind

Back to contents

FORMER HEAD OF MISSISSIPPI INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND INDICTED AND CONVICTED

Robert Sibley, former head of Mississippi Industries for the Blind, has attended more than one NFB convention. He has made statements supporting our positions in more than one battle. Yet, when it recently developed that he had been engaging in illegal activity in connection with the workshop, we treated him as we would any other person who had behaved in that manner.

Unlike NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped) we truly support "standards" and the provision of "quality services to the blind." We hold our friends to the same code of ethics to which we hold our opponents. We have our own system of accreditation, and those who meet our standards must truly "serve" the blind—not just themselves or their own personal interests.

Furthermore, we believe we should publicize exploitation of the blind wherever we find it. There should not be partiality or favoritism in this regard. We are not NAC or the American Foundation for the Blind, and we should not behave as if we were. In other words, we should not favor our friends and hide their misdeeds or try unjustly to blacken the names of our detractors. We should (to the best of our knowledge and ability) tell the truth about what happens in the field of work with the blind, and we should not slant that truth or try to conceal it or play favorites. Mostly (we are pleased to say) our friends usually measure up extremely well to these standards of ethical conduct and decent behavior—which is one reason why they are our friends. Very often our opponents do not measure up to these standards—explaining, perhaps, why they are our opponents and why they feel such vindictive anger toward us.

Be this as it may, we believe the blind of the nation will want to read the following article. Under date of January 28, 1981, it appeared in the Clarion, Mississippi Ledger. It is headlined: "Ex-MIB Execs Plead Guilty, On Probation." Here is the article in its entirety.

Two Morton men, both former executives for the Mississippi Industries for the Blind, each pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges of fraudulent interstate securities transportation.

Former MIB Director Robert Sibley and former MIB plant manager Bobby Ray Harrison were each sentenced to two concurrent sentences of three years, which was suspended by U.S. District Judge Walter L. Nixon Jr. Instead, Harrison and Sibley will each be on probation for five years and each must pay a $1,500 fine and pay $8,500 in restitution to the state Department of Audit for MIB.

Harrison and Sibley both originally entered innocent pleas to the charges late last year. The charges involve the transportation of two MIB checks from Jackson to Houston, Texas.

Their indictments were the result of an FBI investigation into illegally diverted excess materials for government contracts from MIB.

Sibley, Harrison and two Texas men were indicted on two counts each of transporting two checks, which totaled $49,000, from Jackson to Houston during 1979. The checks allegedly covered fraudulent transactions involving the channeling of surplus materials from government contracts.

The checks were for money with which MIB was to have bought materials from Houston Wipers and Supply, which deals in industrial wiping cloths and mill supplies. The materials were never delivered.

That firm was owned by Texans Jake Blend and Leon W. Brown, who were also indicted in connection with the scheme. Assistant U.S. Attorney James B. Tucker, who represented the government in the case, said Blend and Brown were supposed to be in court Tuesday but failed to appear.

Back to contents

WHAT DO WE GIVE—AND WHY

by RAMONA WALHOF

When my son was five years old I had occasion to say to him: "When you went to Johnny's birthday party, which did you enjoy more: watching Johnny open the present you brought him, or eating the ice cream and cake he gave you?" My son had no problem answering the question: "It was more fun to watch him open the present I gave him," he said.

Anyone who stops to think about it knows that we all want and need to give to others, and the best part of it all is when we know that what we give is appropriate for the occasion, the cause, the person, or all three. That is why we give of our money, our time, our imagination, and our energy to the National Federation of the Blind. We give because we want to and because we believe what we give is helping more when given to the Federation than it would if given and used elsewhere. Federationism has made us all better people. It brings out the best in all of us, whether we or our enemies know it or not.

Yet, questions are raised by local chapters and state affiliates: How can we use what we have most effectively and for the benefit of our own local members? Would it be better to assist twenty-five people to attend our state convention or to assist five people to attend the national convention? Would it be better to publish our state newsletter every month instead of quarterly or send the money to the Braille Monitor? Would it be better to make a donation to a local service or to the national treasury of the Federation? Should we charter a bus and make a trip, or make a contribution to the tenBroek Memorial Fund? Since many of our chapter members are not as interested in national legislation and court cases as they might be, shouldn't we take their interests into consideration when it comes to spending the money we raised by having our spaghetti dinner? How can we really justify sending someone to the March on Washington when many of our members don't know much about it or even want to know?

In a nationwide organization such as ours, these questions come up first in one city and then in another. We are learning how to be better Federationists. We are learning more about the organization and more about ourselves all the time. Sometimes we are shortsighted, and sometimes we lack experience or data. We as individuals and we as chapters and state affiliates must make decisions, not only about what we can do, but also about what we cannot do. All of us have asked one or another of the questions above, and no doubt, we have come up with different answers. And there are other questions. If we send our money to the national treasury of the Federation, what good will it do our local blind people? When we sold tickets for the raffle, we told those who bought them that the money was to be spent for the benefit of the blind in our city. Therefore, is it dishonest if we send that money to the national treasury of the Federation?

If these questions are raised in good faith (and generally they are) then they deserve serious attention and a serious answer. One answer—and it seems to me a reasonable one—is another question.

Why did we organize as a National Federation of the Blind in the first place? Why do local organizations find it is more effective to be affiliated with a state and a national organization of the blind than simply to go it alone? Not only blind persons, but scores or hundreds of other organizations have found that national organization is desirable and effective. Of course, the answer is obvious to all of us. We organized because a national organization with 500 local chapters can be well-coordinated, hard-hitting, better informed, and make use of all resources more thoroughly than 500 local chapters working separately. If one school district has a good program for the education of blind children, a national organization of blind persons makes it more likely that other school districts in other states and cities throughout the country will learn about it, learn from it, and have the opportunity to build a similar program. The same is true of rehabilitation programs, legislation affecting the blind, services for the senior blind, dealing with cases of discrimination, developing and circulating quality literature on blindness, developing new technology and helping other people to learn about it, making use of new methods and tools that are helpful to blind persons. But this is not all; the list goes on. National coordination is essential in helping employers find new kinds of employment, building better library services for the blind, monitoring the work of federal and state agencies in work with the blind, helping blind persons find and purchase good quality aids and appliances at reasonable prices (the talking clock is only one example).

Every blind person in the country (whether or not he or she is a member-at-large or a member of a local chapter—or, for that matter, not a member at all) benefits from all of these activities. Life for every blind person in this country is better than it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago, or 10 years ago—a great deal better; and it is primarily because of the work of the National Federation of the Blind. It increases respect for all blind persons a little when a speech by Dr. Jernigan is included in the Congressional Record. Respect for all blind persons is increased a little when Mary Main appears on television. Well-reasoned and hard-hitting testimony before a congressional committee helps every blind person in this country, even if the legislation desired is not passed by Congress. The reason the National Federation of the Blind has this effectiveness and respect is because we are truly a national movement. Five hundred or more strong and active local chapters and 51 strong and active state affiliates stand behind Federation spokesmen, and more and more public officials and agencies serving the blind know it. When these people get acquainted with any of us and hear what we have to say to them, they become aware that we are speaking for the blind of the nation. Local and state agencies serving the blind identify our local representatives who communicate with them with the entire body of the National Federation of the Blind. New members of the organization first get to know a local chapter and state affiliate, but they become a part of a strong national movement. Local and state newsletters, Christmas parties, candy sales, or walk-a-thons help make the Federation what it is throughout the country. We could not be what we are without them.

Dr. Jernigan has said that $1.00 spent by the national treasury of the Federation can buy as much as $25.00 spent by a state affiliate or $100.00 spent by a local chapter. Of course, this is because anything that is accomplished on the national level affects all of us directly, whereas the same things accomplished at the local level affect many times fewer people in the same way. The Braille Monitor is perhaps the best example. Any article printed in the Braille Monitor will be read by scores of thousands of people. The same article published in a state newsletter, would be read by hundreds of people, or perhaps as many as 2,000. In a local chapter's newsletter, that article may be read by 100 or perhaps as many as 500 people. Furthermore, whether we like it or not, the same person reading the same article will pay more attention to it if it appears in the Braille Monitor than if it is printed in a state or local newsletter.

What is true of the Braille Monitor is also true of other material developed by the National Federation of the Blind. Whatever is distributed from our National headquarters is available to each and every member of state affiliates and local chapters for sale or distribution, but it does not work the other way around. An aid or appliance cannot be distributed to the whole nation by one state affiliate. If that were done, it would become a national project.

If six individuals learn six different facts about a situation, and each tells a friend—then twelve people know one fact about that situation. If six people learn six different facts about a situation (let's say the Minneapolis Society for the Blind) and each tells the National President of the Federation—he has all the information. He and the whole national body are then in a position to make informed decisions about the matter and put the resources of the entire movement into an effort to carry out those decisions and spread the word about them throughout the nation.

Minimum wages for the blind in sheltered workshops is an important and timely goal of the Federation. Many of our members are employed in sheltered workshops in all parts of the country. Cincinnati and Houston are important arenas for action by the Federation. Every workshop employee and every blind person everywhere will benefit by these cases. Where to make this stand had to be determined on the basis of where the time and situation were right and where we had the best chance for success. These cases will cost money, and there will be some local factors to take into consideration. What happens in these two cities affects all blind persons and many who are not blind in this country. Blind persons who know nothing of the Federation and nothing of Cincinnati or Houston—some who have worked to damage our movement—will benefit from these cases. Our own members who are new or unschooled in some of the activities of the Federation will be helped personally by these cases. The same is true of Social Security legislation, cases in the courts, problems with agencies in work with the blind. The Job Opportunities for the Blind program is building a better employment climate for blind persons today and all who will be looking for work in the years to come. People who never heard of JOB are getting fair consideration in the employment market and will continue to do so because of the Federation. President Jernigan has said that we have worked to make our National headquarters impressive to both our friends and our opponents. How could it be otherwise? The space at our National headquarters is a source of pride and strength to our members and friends. It must be a source of concern to those who (for whatever reason) are bitter or hostile toward us. Although they are not likely to believe it, even blind persons who work to destroy the Federation are helped by our strength. Their status in their communities rises with the strength and the success of the entire Federation. Very few people really want to stand face to face with Dr. Jernigan and debate with him. His logic and eloquence are so well-known and impressive that few people would care to challenge him. The office space of our National headquarters, the caliber of our leaders and literature generally, the commitment of our members throughout the country are forces unmatched in work with the blind in this country. They are respected and feared by NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind and by others. Our strength is what has caused them to become more and more bitter in recent years and finally what has caused the Foundation to reassess its position toward us.

But, of course, the number of agencies and individuals who are bitter toward the Federation is diminishing gradually year by year. There are agencies that are putting Federation philosophy into practice—agencies that are encouraging blind people to reach for real equality. And each year there are more such agencies, and more individuals in work with the blind who stand with us, just as there are more blind people who understand Federationism and make it part of their daily lives. As our movement gains momentum, nothing can stop us. More and more people know who we are and know we can never go back.

All of this must be coordinated nationally, and a big job it is for our leaders—but not just our leaders. It is a job for all of us, the tens of thousands of blind persons who are the Federation throughout the country. That is why we are what we are. None of us can give too much of our time, our talent, our money. It is a joy to give it, and from a practical point of view, it is the best investment any of us can possibly make for ourselves personally, for our friends who are blind, or for the next generation of the blind.

Back to contents

PAC UPDATE

Now that our computer is beginning to be fully operational, it is becoming increasingly possible to get a handle on the various facets of our day to day operations. For one thing, we can now keep up to date on the figures concerning PAC (the Pre-Authorized Check plan) more easily and quickly than ever before. We must constantly remind ourselves that our individual contributions to the Federation translate into better lives for blind people. It is that simple and that compelling.

PAC is now one of the most important sources of our fiscal stability. We are doing well in our PAC giving, but we must still do better—and more of us must participate. The following facts and figures will give you the profile of PAC as of February 6, 1981:

828 Federationists are contributing to PAC. The total monthly PAC contribution is $16,141.16. Projected for a year, this would mean an annual contribution of $193,693.92. In other words, the average PAC contributor is giving just over $19.49 per month—or $234.00 per year. What other organization in this country has almost a thousand members each of whom is willing to give an average of over $200.00 per year to support its goals and purposes! That is real belief, real commitment—and it is why we are the unbeatable, unstoppable force that we are. Our movement means something to us. It is important in our lives, and we prove that fact by putting our money where our mouths are.

The figure of $19.49 per month is, of course, only an average. The amount of the monthly contribution given by different individuals varies greatly. Nobody else in the whole world can (or should) tell any of us precisely how much we should contribute to PAC each month. It is a matter for each of us to decide in consultation with ourselves. It depends upon the number of other commitments the individual has, the economic circumstances, the priorities, and how important each of us really thinks the Federation is. As of February 6, 1981, the highest PAC pledge in the country is $177.50 per month. Five people give $150.00 a month or more. On the other hand, some contributions are as low as $2.00 or $2.50 per month. These lower contributions should be just as valued and appreciated as the higher ones if they truly represent a sacrifice and are all that the individual can afford. Each of us should examine our conscience and our commitment. We should determine how much this movement really means to us, and then we should set our priorities and give accordingly.

In the following rankings you will observe that every state is represented on the PAC plan. You will also notice that there have been some interesting changes since the last report and that a few of the states are making substantially higher contributions than the others. PAC pledges do not come from the activities of professional fundraisers or from outside sources. They come from us, as a measure of our own personal belief and commitment. The reason that PAC is higher in one state and lower in another is not a matter of how rich the state is or whether it is rural or has a good rehabilitation program or is conservative or liberal or has this or that population mix. It is entirely a matter of organizational strength and acceptance by individual members of personal responsibility for getting the job done. We have reason to feel both pride and satisfaction in the following statistics:

PRE-AUTHORIZED CHECK RANKINGS
FEBRUARY 6, 1981

Back to contents

UPDATE ON ASSOCIATES

In the previous article we discussed the Pre-Authorized Check plan (PAC). We now turn to another important aspect of the financing of our organization, the recruiting of "Associates." This is the third year in which we have conducted an "Associates" contest. The current contest runs from June 1, 1980, through May 31, 1981. Associate forms received in the office of the Treasurer or in the National Office after May 31, 1981, will count in next year's contest.

A full explanation of the Associates program, as well as rules for the contest, appeared in the October - November, 1979, Monitor. We explained that:

In 1978 the NFB Constitution was amended to provide for "members-at-large" at the national level. These members-at-large were given the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as any other member of the Federation at the national level—that is, they may attend the National Convention, speak on the floor, make motions, make nominations, participate in discussions carried on by the delegation from their state, and serve on committees. As is the case with any other member, they do not have an individual vote at the National Convention since votes are cast by elected delegates from the state affiliates. In other words, they have a real and meaningful membership. Unless they specifically join a state or local affiliate, they are not members of the affiliate and have no more rights in the affiliate than any other nonmember of the affiliate. They are national members-at-large.

National "members-at-large" must fill out a membership application form and pay an assessment of $1.00 per year to the National treasury to keep their membership in force. Each year a new application form must accompany the $1.00 assessment. Any application form dated, received, and accepted either at the Treasurer's office or at the National Office in Baltimore before October 1 will entitle the applicant to membership for the remainder of that calendar year. Any application form dated, received, and accepted at the Treasurer's office or the National Office after October 1 entitles the person to membership for the remainder of that calendar year and all of the following calendar year. Members of the Federation who recruit national "members-at-large" should make certain that the name and full address of the member-at-large are legibly printed or typed in the appropriate place on the application form. In addition, the name and the state of the person doing the recruiting should be clearly printed or typed in the place on the form which says "local representative of the National Federation of the Blind." This is absolutely necessary if the recruiter is to receive credit for enrolling the member-at-large.

The Associates program was established to permit national members-at-large to make meaningful contributions to the movement. Any person filling out one of our national membership forms and making a contribution of $10.00 or more becomes an Associate. From time to time information mailings are made from the National Office to Associates, and all contributions from Associates are acknowledged.

Some of our members say that their means are so limited that they have difficulty joining the PAC plan. However, the recruiting of Associates does not depend on how much money you have. It depends upon how hard you are willing to work and how much the movement means to you.

This year in Baltimore at the National Convention the person who has recruited the most Associates from June 1, 1980, through May 31, 1981, will be declared the winner of the contest and given a prize of $1,000.00 in cash. Second prize will be $500.00; third prize will be $200.00; and fourth prize will be $100.00. As Federationists will remember, Sandy Sanderson of Alaska won last year's contest, plus the fact that Alaska took the other top two prizes. It will also be remembered that Sandy said that he and Alaska intended to win this year's contest. As he put it, "The bear has spoken."

In this article we are printing the rankings in the contest as of February 10, 1981. To give some comparison, we cite figures from this time last year. From June 1, 1979, through January 27, 1980, 46 states (including the District of Columbia) had recruited Associates. Five had not. As of February 10 this year, 47 states (including the District of Columbia) have recruited Associates. As of January 28 last year, 238 known recruiters had sold 1,318 Associates for a total of $24,539.00. As of February 10 this year, we have done slightly better, but we must pour on the steam during the next few weeks. You will note in the following tables that there are substantial changes in the rankings this year. Although the bear from Alaska is number one, the number two recruiter is from California, and the number three recruiter is from Iowa. Karen Mayry of South Dakota is number four. As we come down to the wire, Alaska will need to look to its laurels. Here are the rankings:

STATE RANKINGS

February 10, 1981

INDIVIDUAL RECRUITERS BY NATIONAL BANK

February 10, 1981

**TOTALS***                                                            1390        $25,840.00

Back to contents

MARCH ON WASHINGTON: OUR BIGGEST AND BEST YET AS WE CONFRONT THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

The March on Washington has become an annual event of special significance to the blind. This year we assembled in the early days of February, just in time to get acquainted with the new Administration and many new members of Congress as they were settling in to make a renewed effort to cure the country's economic ills.

After several weeks of planning, which began at the Federation's Board of Directors' meeting, held in Baltimore over the Thanksgiving weekend, the March was actually underway, as Federationists from throughout the country arrived in Washington on Sunday, February 1. With almost 200 of us present, it is not too much to say that the gathering of our forces seemed to have many of the characteristics of a national convention, with old friends meeting to talk about developments in their respective states, and delegations caucusing to plan their strategies for the days ahead. There was even a bit of hospitality, but it was abundantly clear that everyone had come to work. And, indeed, there was plenty of work to be done, since there are many new faces in Congress—freshmen members in the House of Representatives, and new Senators. Each was given special attention because for many it was the first opportunity to learn of the problems facing blind people and of how they might be solved through Federal legislation. Of course, there were also old friends on Capitol Hill to be contacted as well; it all made for a jam-packed three days.

The Bellevue Hotel, located north of the Capitol, near the Amtrak station and the National Visitors Center, was headquarters for the March this year. The site was excellent, since those who wanted to could easily walk to the Senate office buildings, and the heartier among our troops could also proceed across Capitol Hill to the three House office buildings which line Independence Avenue, immediately to the south of the Capitol building itself.

This March set several milestones, including the distinction of largest and most representative yet. We also overflowed the space provided in the headquarters hotel, giving Ralph Sanders, who coordinated all housing arrangements, a few anxious moments until ample accommodations were found in a brand new Holiday Inn, located a few blocks south of Capitol Hill. Even in these times of inflation, the room rates, the same for both hotels, were among the best we have ever had.

The first briefing session, designed to prepare everyone for the work ahead, began at 6:00 PM Sunday evening, right on time, as is our custom in Federation events. We might also note that the talking clocks were clearly in evidence, although, after an initial opportunity to have them speak in unison (6:04 PM) most clock owners were able to restrain themselves from checking the time until after the meeting had ended, nearly four hours later.

President Jernigan gaveled the briefing session to order and gave opening remarks which brought us all up to date on latest developments in the movement. There was much to feel good about, not the least of which was the report that the mortgage on our National Center in Baltimore is now paid off, and the property is free and clear. Dr. Jernigan also informed us that an investigation which had been conducted by the U. S. Attorney in Des Moines to look into the charges of the Des Moines Register, was now closed with the finding, in writing, that "no action by the government was warranted"—in other words, we have been completely vindicated and the innuendoes and much-talked-about charges of our opponents totally discredited. This so-called "investigation" (which never had any substance to it in the first place, and which has been dragged out since 1978) has now finally come to an end and has turned up exactly what we always said it would turn up—nothing. It will be interesting to see whether our AFB-NAC-ACB-Des Moines Register friends are as anxious to spread this word as they have been to spread the innuendoes and the lies.

The report from Des Moines, the news about the National Center, the information that the JOB contract has been increased and renewed for another year, and a variety of similar encouraging and positive reports gave all of us ample reason for good spirit and high enthusiasm as we set forth with pride the next day to do our work in Washington.

The issues which we talked to our Senators and Representatives about this year are not unfamiliar to Federationists. Each of the issues will be discussed in some detail later in this article, and a "Legislative Memorandum," presenting an overview of social and economic conditions prevalent among the blind is included. These materials have been developed with an eye toward those elements of need which relate to the economic situation of most blind people, since the top priority for this Congress is to attack conditions of stress and instability in our national economy. As will be observed, the point to be made in general is that in solving the major economic problems now plaguing our country, the blind should not be pushed aside and ignored. Lawmakers too often fail to understand (unless we call the matter to their attention) that we, too, (those of us who are blind) have many economic problems which are often imposed upon us by provisions of Federal law. Our job, as the organized voice of the nation's blind, is to let these policy-makers know where the changes in the laws need to be made.

It must be clear to everyone that the Election Day mandate of November 4, 1980, has signalled the beginning of a new era in national politics, and with it, a new set of priorities is now being established. Representative Barry Goldwater, Jr. (Republican of California) put it best when he addressed a large delegation of our marchers assembled on Tuesday morning, February 3, in the Rayburn House Office Building. Mr. Goldwater said that for the last ten or fifteen years Congress has enjoyed the unchecked luxury of spending the people's money as if there were no tomorrow, but finally, he said, tomorrow has arrived, and it is time to face reality by realizing that the unrestrained practices of the past cannot continue any longer.

The program which we presented to Congress this year takes this into account by focusing on those features of current law which stand as road blocks to economic progress, independence, and security for the blind. This package of legislative proposals does not call for initiating big, new, and expensive programs; it asks only to have established laws modified so as to free blind people from the restrictions which are now being imposed upon them by public policy and social attitudes.

We did not attempt to address all of the issues which currently cry out for legislative solutions, since given the times, this approach would have been counterproductive. The time will come when each matter can be taken up in its turn. As a whole, our theme was simple: The blind, more than most, suffer the pain of the hard economic times. Yet, we are often prevented from doing anything about this condition. We are sidetracked from the main channels of productive life.

We delivered this message forcefully as we fanned out to every Congressional office. Reports received by workers in our fourth floor command post at the Bellevue indicated that our message was greeted with generally positive response, and we found many friends who are ready and willing to join in championing our cause in the Halls of Congress. In the weeks ahead, the bills will be introduced, so watch for announcements in the Monitor and otherwise. Already, Congressman Philip Burton (Democrat of California) has introduced the minimum wage legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill is HR 852. All members of the House should be encouraged to co-sponsor this bill and to work with us as the other bills get underway. Likewise, members of the Senate should be urged to contact us to express their interest in joining with us to lead or advance the legislative effort in these areas. The times are, indeed, times of change, but there is certainly no reason for despair, for we have only ourselves to blame if we fail to meet the challenge.

LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM

FROM: Members of the National Federation of the Blind

TO: Members of the Ninety-Seventh Congress

RE:  The blind: A status report and legislative solutions

Nearly one-half million people in the United States are blind; we do not see, or we do not see very well, but for most of us the lack of eyesight has not been the principal obstacle. As much as any other group of citizens, we want to shoulder our share of the burden by contributing to the growth of our nation's economy, and most of us have the capacity (not merely the desire) to do this; several thousand of us are already at work and proving ourselves every day.

The rest of us have been side-tracked, and as the economic times grow harder, our prospects for an equal chance to be part of the productive life of our communities continue to diminish. The best statistics we can gather show that only about 30,000 blind people have jobs which pay them more than $458.00 per month, just enough to lose all of their Social Security benefits but sometimes not enough to live on. Most blind people are not able to find work, but when they do, they may often be channeled into jobs far beneath their skills and potentials, such as working at below poverty level wages in sheltered workshops. Few blind people own their own businesses. About 4,000 participate in a special governmentally sponsored program, providing opportunities for them to manage vending facilities on federal and other property.

Most blind people have only their Social Security or Supplemental Security Income checks to meet regular daily living expenses, yet many could be self-sufficient and productive if given the opportunity to do so. The National Federation of the Blind is actively working to alter or remove the various social conditions and attitudes which have historically prevented the blind from becoming full partners in business and industry; much of the job is educational, and some progress can be made through special initiatives, such as our federally assisted job opportunities project, but certain legal barriers remain in our path, requiring action by Congress. These are mentioned below and discussed in more detail in the accompanying fact sheets. Each proposal addresses an identified problem with an appropriate legislative solution, and in each case, federal legislation represents the only viable option available.

(1) Wage Protection for Low Income Blind Workers: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contains an exemption which applies to blind workers, allowing pay rates to be as low as 25% of the federal minimum wage. The exemption arrangement was enacted in 1938 as part of the original law, and it was only modified slightly fifteen years ago. Excluding blind workers from minimum wage protection denies thousands the chance to be paid a wage which barely compensates them for their productive efforts. One out of every seven blind people who have jobs is employed by a sheltered workshop where the FLSA exemptions are most commonly in effect. Wages for these workers could be improved by providing them with the minimum wage protection available to others throughout our industrial economy. A legislative proposal and a detailed explanation of the need for it will be found in the accompanying fact sheet on "Minimum Wage for the Blind."

(2) The Problem of Discrimination: Despite all of the efforts we are making to change public attitudes, the image of the helpless, dependent blind is still wide-spread in our culture. This has resulted in limiting substantially our opportunities for competitive employment, and laws must be enacted to prevent these unjustified restrictions, wherever possible. In some states the laws which prohibit employment discrimination against women and minorities have also been amended to include protection for disabled persons, and the results have shown that public policy against discrimination on the basis of handicap can expand employment possibilities while reducing the burden on our welfare system. The federal legislation in this area is limited and largely ineffective, but Congress could act to insure equal employment opportunity for the blind and handicapped persons. The best way to do this is by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along the lines of bills introduced in the Senate and House during the 96th Congress. This legislation and the need for it are described further in the accompanying fact sheet on "Employment Discrimination Against the Blind."

(3) Social Security and Work Incentives: 120,000 blind people derive their principal income from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program which includes monthly cash benefits and medicare coverage for certain beneficiaries. The concept of Social Security replacing earnings which are lost because of a disability such as blindness has merit, but our present SSDI program remains committed to the philosophy of helping only those beneficiaries who do not work and denying a hand up to those who want to achieve self-sufficiency again. This philosophy operates by means of an arbitrarily imposed earnings limitation which has the inevitable and undesirable effect of stifling the initiative of thousands of potentially productive blind citizens. A legislative solution, calling for specific changes in Title II of the Social Security Act has enjoyed bi-partisan support in past Congresses and several amendments to provide more work incentive for the blind have actually become law; the most recent of these being part of the 1977 Social Security amendments. A more detailed discussion of proposed legislation to alleviate the work incentive problems caused by disability insurance will be found in the accompanying fact sheet on "Improved Disability Insurance for the Blind."

Blind people are asking for your help in gathering support for legislation in the areas outlined above. As this session of Congress proceeds, we anticipate introduction of appropriate bills, and we ask that you join those who will support each element of our three-pronged attack upon the most pressing economic and social problems facing the blind. Many priorities confront the 97th Congress, but none is more important than putting America back to work again, and the blind must not be overlooked in fashioning the best possible legislative program to do the job.

For more information please contact:

James Gashel
Director, Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(301) 659-9314

FACT SHEET

MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE BLIND

97th CONGRESS: H.R. 852-PURPOSE: To extend to blind and visually impaired citizens the coverage of the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: H.R. 852 (a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that blind persons may not be employed at less than the applicable minimum wage under that Act) has been introduced by Honorable Philip Burton of California. Identical bills have been introduced in the 95th and 96th Congresses, and four days of hearings have been held by the subcommittee on Labor Standards of the House Committee on Education and Labor. These hearings have sparked a serious reassessment of present law and policy.

As a part of this review, the Secretary of Labor initiated a rule-making proceeding and held administrative hearings in mid-1979. One year later, in May, 1980, the administrative review was concluded with the finding that the Department of Labor lacks sufficient authority to establish a minimum wage requirement on behalf of blind workers. At the same time, however, the Department of Labor did express a desire to work toward some resolution of this problem for blind persons by invoking "experimental" authority to order certain wage increases under the FLSA. DOL's experiment (which involves ordering employers to raise wages for certain blind workers over a four year period to achieve full minimum wage) has not even begun at this point, and there is no assurance that the "experiment" will ever start or be completed. In short, a legislative solution is required.

Early last year the General Accounting Office (GAO) commenced a large-scale review of the so-called sheltered workshops which receive the principal advantage of subminimum wages. The GAO review is nearly complete, and a report is expected in mid-February.

PRESENT LAW AND REGULATION: Section 14(c) of the FLSA permits subminimum wage payments to handicapped workers and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations and to establish certification procedures under which subminimum wages may be paid. Any employer, (including a sheltered workshop) may pay handicapped employees subminimum wages after submitting for approval by the Department of Labor a request for an exemption.

Labor Department regulations allow the subminimum wages to go as low as 25% of the satutory minimum wage. Exemption certificates are issued to set the subminimum pay rate applicable to the work force of a sheltered workshop, but individual certificates (providing for even lower rates of pay) may be secured.

BACKGROUND DATA: A study released by the U.S. Department of Labor in March, 1979, reported that there were 6,196 "visually impaired" workers in more than 100 sheltered workshops. There are an estimated 900 blind employees in competitive industry receiving subminimum wages, but exact data is not available. Exemption certificates show that many workers earn less than $1 an hour—and some get only carfare—without fringe benefits or job security. Half of the blind workers were paid less than $1,500 according to the 1979 Labor Department report. Administrators of the workshops, by contrast, often receive salaries in the $50,000 range, with substantial benefits.

One hundred sheltered workshops for the blind are part of a nationwide system known as National Industries for the Blind (NIB). NIB (a private organization) allocates federal government and other contracts to the workshops and receives in return a percentage (ranging from 4% to 10%) of the gross sales on those contracts. It employs approximately 60 people nationally (reportedly none of whom are blind, many being former military executives who receive substantial retirement pensions) with annual expenditures of two million dollars for salaries and other expenses.

REASONS TO ADOPT: Blind people should not be excluded from our long-established national policy of minimum wage protection for American workers. The justification which has been used for denying wage protection for blind workers is the presumption that productivity is lower among the blind than other workers, but the facts are to the contrary. Almost all blind people who work in private industry are paid the minimum wage or above, and approximately 20 sheltered workshops for the blind guarantee their blind employees at least the minimum wage. The question should be asked, why are other workshops not required to protect the wages of blind workers?

Inefficient management, substandard equipment, and poor production methods are at the heart of the problem. The blind should no longer be forced to suffer the injustice of subminimum wages in order to subsidize inefficiency and substandard conditions. Thoroughly tried and tested business practices commonly in use in industry today can improve productivity and increase business volume for the workshops. Business and industry have demonstrated the capacity to improve wages and working conditions for American workers, and there is no reason to expect that the managers of sheltered workshops could not do the same for the blind.

Blind workers are productive. During FY 1979, the 5,350 blind people who worked in the NIB system generated $127,267,416 in gross sales. But these blind workers were not paid an equitable amount in comparison to their productivity—salaries and fringe benefits amounted to $24,143,756, or 18.9% of the gross sales. In competitive employment it is customary for salaries and fringe benefits paid to production workers to be in the range of 23.4% to 28% of gross sales or even more.

The workshops argue that they cannot increase the wages of the blind but there are plenty of facts which do not support their assertion. Surveys of balance sheets for several agencies which operate workshops show sufficient capital is available. The Industrial Home for the Blind (IHB) which operates three sheltered plants in the New York City area reported net worth of $13,689,655 at the end of 1976. In 1978 IHB produced revenue of $3,754,827 from its sales activities yet blind workers were only paid $360,000, less than 10% for their labors. In 1977, the Jewish Guild for the Blind, also operating workshops in New York City, had excess income over expenses of nearly one million dollars, which brought the organization's net worth to $25,640,251 at the beginning of 1978. The New York Association for the Blind started 1977 with $55,264,654 in net worth, but by the end of the year there had been an increase of $2,156,574.

Elsewhere in the country, the San Francisco Lighthouse, already worth $6,354,747, ended 1977 with an increase of $449,148. This agency has now gone to minimum wage for all blind workers. In Washington, D.C., the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind was worth $2,229,998 as it started 1977, and this was up from $1,662,507 at the beginning of the previous year. In Cincinnati, the Clovernook Home and School for the Blind (which also operates a sheltered workshop) boosted its net worth by $224,534 during 1977, reaching a total of $7,945,877 at the end of that year. Looking at the broader picture, a random sample check of fund balance sheets from 36 workshops (1/3 of the NIB system) shows that 77% of them had excess income over expenses during 1977.

It is contended that the removal of subminimum wages for the blind will be harmful since blind persons who receive higher wages will lose Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. This is not necessarily the case. The SSI eligibility rules for the blind permit earnings well above the minimum wage before benefits are suspended or even reduced. The SSDI rules are somewhat more restrictive, but any blind person is permitted to earn $5,500 during 1981 before SSDI benefits are terminated, and this rate is higher than the average wage which workers receive in the NIB system. Most importantly, the decision to earn one's daily bread is a matter of individual choice, and no employer should be permitted to limit a worker's earnings simply because the employee has access to other income. The blind have decided that it is better to earn a living than to live off of the earnings of others, and this decision should command the respect of all.

FACT SHEET

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE BLIND

BACKGROUND: Despite expenditures of nearly one billion dollars annually for the State/federal vocational rehabilitation program, most blind people remain substantially unemployed or underemployed. Social Security data indicates that approximately 30,000 blind people have jobs which pay them gross wages in excess of $458 per month, just enough not to receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The problem is discrimination, not any general incapacity for work among the blind. Myths, misconceptions, and lack of accurate information about blindness caused this discrimination, leading employers to make typical statements such as the following: "I'd like to hire a blind person, I really would, but we have a factory here, and there's really nothing they can do — but you understand, I know how capable they are; I wish I could help." These phrases are the most common manifestations of the deep-seated prejudices, fears, and doubts about the ability of blind people to work productively; this is the essence of discrimination, coupled with kindness and charity.

PRESENT LAW: Discrimination against blind persons in employment is often poorly or not at all addressed by federal and State laws. While some legislation to prohibit employment discrimination does exist, the results so far have been a patch-work system containing diverse and often conflicting policies and regulations. Employers are confused, and so are the blind who seek opportunities.

The first laws (commonly known as "White Cane Laws") came to the State level, and these are ordinarily based on a model developed by the National Federation of the Blind more than a decade ago. The next advancement occurred when several States passed laws concerning handicapped people along with the other minorities and women protected by civil rights statutes. In 1973 the Congress entered into the picture by including three provisions related to employment discrimination against handicapped persons in the Rehabilitation Act. These are Section 501 (requiring federal agencies to establish affirmative action programs for handicapped applicants and employees), and Section 504 (prohibiting all forms of discrimination against handicapped persons by recipients of federal financial assistance and in federal programs). In 1978 the Congress took further action to strengthen these anti-discrimination laws by specifying that the rights and remedies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also be available to victims of discrimination prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act.

These federal and State laws are important but limited in scope and effectiveness, and so far enforcement has often been slow; nor is there a single agency in the government to oversee enforcement of these laws—the system is complex and bureaucratic. For example, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for enforcing the Affirmative Action requirements which cover federal contractors, while every other federal agency which extends federal financial assistance also maintains authority to enforce anti-discrimination regulations which cover employment practices of federally assisted programs and activities. This system is bewildering to persons having legitimate claims of employment discrimination—which federal agency has jurisdiction; that is the question. Furthermore, the thousands of employers who engage in interstate commerce but do not operate under federal contracts or receive federal grants are generally not covered by the current constellation of laws, thus there is no clear remedy available when discrimination occurs.

NEED FOR LEGISLATION: Enactment of equal employment opportunity legislation to protect the blind and other handicapped persons from employment discrimination is essential in order to insure that these potentially productive citizens will be able to contribute their talents and energies as equal partners in our nation's work force. The principal objective should be to establish a firm legislative mandate against employment discrimination which places potentially employable and independent citizens among the ranks of the unemployed and dependent, leaving them at the mercy of our nation's welfare and social services systems.

The present laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap offer inadequate protection against employment discrimination, and often, although business and industry have a strong desire to cooperate, the requirements of both federal and State agencies conflict to such an extent that their expectations are confusing and contradictory. Moreover, most work situations are not covered at all by federal or State laws. For example Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act extends to approximately 300,000 federal contractors and subcontractors, whereas more than 700,000 employers, operating in the private sector without federal contracts, remain substantially free from any obligation to avoid discrimination against blind and handicapped persons. Compounding the problem, recent court rulings have held that Congress did not intend to prohibit employment discrimination against the handicapped when it enacted Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires that federal programs and federally assisted programs operate without discrimination on the basis of handicap.

In short, under current law, there is no generally applicable prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of handicapping condition. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination of the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; but it provides no protection for disabled workers. The blind as a group have long worked to gain the status of equality and to organize public assistance and rehabilitation programs which are directed toward offering a hand up to productive employment, not merely a handout along with meaningless exercise. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of enacting equal employment opportunity legislation in this area would not be significant, with only a modest increase in expenditures of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for compliance enforcement activities.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION: Although support has been building for legislation to provide protection against employment discrimination for the blind and handicapped, the most significant steps were taken in the 96th Congress. Of special importance was introduction of companion bills in the Senate and House—S. 446 by Senator Harrison Williams, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and H.R. 7423 by Representative Paul Simon, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor. Each bill attracted a significant number of co-sponsors representing points of view on both sides of the aisle. These bills were entitled "The Equal Employment Opportunity for the Handicapped Act of 1979," and they each would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding protection for persons with "handicapping conditions." A definition of "handicapping conditions" is also included.

During the first session of the 96th Congress the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources conducted hearings on S. 446 and favorably reported the bill on August 1, 1979; however, neither body took final action as the 96th Congress came to a close.

FACT SHEET

IMPROVED DISABILITY INSURANCE FOR THE BLIND

A bill to amend Title II of the Social Security Act so as to liberalize the conditions governing eligibility of blind persons to receive disability insurance benefits thereunder.

HISTORY: The Disability Insurance for the Blind bill, which has passed the Senate seven times, was first offered in the 88th Congress by Senator Hubert Humphrey. Senator Vance Hartke introduced the bill in the 90th Congress whereby the House-Senate Conference on Social Security matters made the generally accepted definition of blindness (20/200 etc.) the standard for visual loss under the Disability Insurance program. Offered again in the 91st Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted a portion of the proposed Disability Insurance for the Blind bill removing the "five out of the last ten years" work requirement which had previously applied to the blind and disabled alike, making 30,000 otherwise ineligible blind persons eligible for Social Security disability benefits. Subsequent to this, the bill passed the Senate several times in succeeding Congresses, and in the 95th another step toward full enactment was taken when the Substantial Gainful Activity Test (earnings limitation) for blind Disability Insurance beneficiaries was established by law at the monthly dollar amount which persons who retire at age 65 are permitted to earn without decreasing their retirement benefits.

PROVISIONS: (1) Allows qualification for disability benefits to the person who is blind, according to the generally accepted definition of blindness (20/200 etc.) and who has worked six quarters in Social Security-covered works.

(2) Continues payment of benefits irrespective of earnings so long as blindness lasts, rather than cutting off benefits if the blind person earns as little as $458.00 in a month, as provided in existing law.

REASONS FOR ADOPTION: (1) Reducing the work requirement is more equitable for blind persons since because of employer reluctance to hire them, the blind often cannot accumulate the necessary quarters of coverage. They are victims of the last hired, first fired syndrome.

(2) Present law keeps blind people and those who become blind out of the work force. Blind persons who seek work do so at the risk of economic disaster since their wages are often less than their disability benefits, and there is no certainty that their employment will continue. Many do not work as a result.

(3) Severe economic consequences accompany blindness. Earning power is usually cut in half, and wages must go for hiring readers, drivers, or for purchasing costly devices. The blind did not create the negative attitudes of employers which keep them from responsible, better paying jobs; but through their lost wages, they pay for this second-class treatment. The costs of blindness should be spread across society as a whole.

(4) Reduction in welfare payments to the blind would occur if this proposal is adopted. After adoption of this measure, most blind people eligible for SSI and other welfare payments would eventually transfer to this new program. Seventy-five thousand blind people would likely become ineligible for SSI, thus there would be a cost savings to general revenues.

ISSUES AND RESPONSES

ISSUE: Cost

Congressional Budget Office most recent estimate: $310 million, first year, $760 million, fifth year; Social Security Administration: twice the amount of the CBO estimates.

RESPONSE: The cost estimates provided so far are questionable on several counts, primarily in their failure to understand the blind population. A more thorough investigation of this group would result in substantially lower cost figures. Consider the following analysis: There are about 475, 000 legally blind persons (and this number remains stable). Half of these are over age 65. Thirty-one thousand of the remainder are children (under age 18). Of the remaining 206,500 working age blind, 166,00 are already receiving either disability insurance payments or SSI, and therefore they would not be new beneficiaries with adoption of this bill. (These are blind persons, who if they are working, are earning less than $458.00 per month.) Because of other circumstances (for example, blind people who have sighted, working spouses), probably another 10,000 of the remaining 40,500 would also continue to be ineligible for disability benefits. This leaves only 30,500 blind persons who are working and earning more than $458.00 per month, and these people would be the potential new beneficiaries.

The most important provision of this bill is to remove the earnings limit. This would provide the greatest possible work incentive for 166,000 blind persons who are now receiving Disability Insurance and SSI payments. These people will be stimulated to join the labor force (and thus begin paying into general revenues and the Social Security trust fund). This income (which has not been estimated by Social Security) would reduce the already low cost of this bill.

ISSUE: "This is a good thing for the blind; but if we adopt this provision for them, we will have to adopt it later for all the disabled; and the system cannot afford that."

RESPONSE: Laws should focus on the unique problems which people have; and the barriers the blind face are more specifically economic than the barriers facing other disability groups. Other groups have major problems with architectural or other physical barriers, or frequently a physical or mental inability to compete at all in the job market. The blind are able to work, and can compete in most jobs on an equal basis with the sighted. But they are prevented from doing so by negative employer attitudes. A Gallup poll showed that Americans fear blindness more than any other handicap, and this means that the blind—although the most able of the handicapped groups to hold jobs—are the last to be hired and the first to be fired. In addition, the costs incidental to working (such as readers, drivers, or technical devices to replace sight), added to the uniformly lower wages the blind are paid, often make it economically unfeasible for the blind to go to work. Other disability groups have far more pressing problems than this economic disincentive (problems requiring different kinds of solutions); but this bill will help to remove the major barriers the blind of this nation face, and will allow them to join the mainstream of our economic and social life. It is a very specific solution to a specific problem facing the blind.

For more information please contact:

James Gashel
Director, Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(301) 659-9314

Back to contents

A THANKSGIVING MESSAGE AND A POSTSCRIPT: FROM TENNESSEE TO THE A.C.B.

By JAMES GASHEL

In the Braille Monitor of November, 1980, we described occurrences in Tennessee involving the state's vending facility program and the relationship between the state agency which runs the program, known as Tennessee Business Enterprises, and the blind vendors who operate businesses under its control. We also reprinted a letter from Curtis Shepherd, President of the Tennessee Blind Vendors Association and National Legislative Chairman of the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America (RSVA). The Tennessee developments have far reaching and profound implications, and the impact of what has occurred will likely not end solely with the immediate and tangible victory we have now achieved in reforming Tennessee's vending facility rules. The Tennessee experience underscores not only the difference in terms of relative strength everybody knows exists between the Federation and the American Council of the Blind (ACB), but it also shows that we have a fundamentally different orientation toward the system of social service and rehabilitation agencies which often control the lives of blind people. We have often observed: "The proof of a thing is, does it work?" Whatever else there is to be learned so far out of Tennessee we know that the Council and its front group of Randolph-Sheppard Vendors do not or cannot work—that is, they have proven conclusively that they were simply unable to deal constructively with the problems which blind vendors in Tennessee were facing.

On November 27, 1980 (Thanksgiving Day), Curtis Shepherd wrote once again to Ione Miller, National President of the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America to give some firsthand and personal testimony as to how RSVA and the Council did not work for the blind of Tennessee. His letter is reprinted below, along with one written a few days later (December 1, 1980) from Betty Sue Shepherd (Curtis's wife) who was, until her letter, a National Board Member of another ACB front group known as the National Association of Blind Teachers (NABT). These letters from Curtis and Betty Sue Shepherd tell it like it is and lay it on the line. As you read them, you will want to remember that, at the time when the Tennessee problems were developing and the Tennessee vendors searched in despair for assistance from their own state ACB affiliate (not to mention their many unreturned phone calls to Durward McDaniel, National Respresentative for ACB in Washington), the President of the Council's affiliate in Tennessee was Otis Stephens, one of the biggest NACsters of them all. You will also remember that this same Otis Stephens, being the NACster that he is, had his own solution to the problems of the Tennessee vendors which was (apparently without shame or discomfort) to call upon the National Federation of the Blind to join with him in convincing the vendors that they ought to settle down. We didn't, and they didn't, and the results are now part of our history of continuing victories on behalf of all blind people.

Here are the letters from Curtis and Betty Sue Shepherd. Indeed, we can give thanks for the organization we have built, as well as people such as these, who are experiencing for the first time the benefits of working in concert with other blind people who, through the Federation, are seeking nothing nothing more than first-class status and equal opportunity for the blind.

November 27, 1980

Dear Ione:

Betty Sue and I have returned home from spending this Thanksgiving Day with my brother, his wife, their little son, and other relatives. It has been a pleasant day for all of us. With my personal faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, I am deeply thankful for my salvation, my wife, our free nation and I am very thankful for my job and various daily blessings. Included among those blessings, admittedly, is the help our Tennessee Committee of Blind Vendors has received from the National Federation of the Blind. A lot of things have happened since the Louisville Convention this past July, and I am now compelled to share some of them with you.

As you know, the Blind Vendors Committee has struggled since its beginning to play its federally mandated role with the S.L.A. (State Licensing Agency, Tennessee Business Enterprises) in Tennessee. We have endured many hardships and numerous legal battles. Small strides forward were made, but those of us on the Committee concerned about its true role recognized that we needed expert help. We anticipated getting that help in the person of Mr. Durward K. McDaniel. We were at first hurt that he did not seem willing to actively help us, and have now become informed that he could not help us because of his role of friendship with Mr. Pinkney C. Scale (former state agency Director). To be perfectly candid, some of us were actually afraid to receive help offered by the National Federation of the Blind because we had always been advised by the A.C.B. that they are such an obnoxious outfit. However, the majority of the Tennessee Committee staked their seats and their reputations on the line, and voted to receive the offer by Mr. James Gashel on behalf of the Federation to assist us in our battles. They have gone to untold expense to aid us, and have done so very successfully. Just one week ago today, Mr. Milton Bolton conveyed to me, by phone, that the Department has accepted in full the work of the Sub-Committees from the State Licensing Agency and from the Blind Vendors Committee. This is only phase one (in revising the Tennessee Vending Facility Rules), and the Federation is pledged to assist us through phase two, and the promulgation of both. Many of us in our volunteer state have discussed the help of the Federation, but that they truly appreciate the dedicated and effective efforts of the N.F.B. True, there are a few that still think that it is the worst thing that has ever happened, but they are a small minority. Even some members of the State Licensing Agency now speak of the Committee with awe and respect. Mr. Bolton has made concrete personal commitments to me that as long as he has a voice, the Committee will play its participatory role with the Agency. The Federation has not operated in an unbecoming manner, but has performed intelligently, working with various members of State and Federal Government to apply appropriate but ethical pressure on the Department and State Licensing Agency to insure cooperation and participation by the Agency with the Committee. So, you see, I have reason to be thankful.

On the other hand, Ione, I have been saddened by a number of things I have learned, factually, about the A.C.B. Mr. LeRoy Saunders was our Banquet Speaker at the Tennessee Council of the Blind Convention just one year ago this past Labor Day weekend. I have had admiration and respect for him, but upon learning how he and others supportive of A.C.B. maneuvered to have a staged opposition luncheon right in the hotel where the N.F.B. was holding its Annual Convention this past summer, I lost all respect for him, and began to see that some seemingly angelic leaders within the A.C.B. may be more devious than the people in the N.F.B. that they have made such harsh accusations about. We have also learned that A.C.B. made all manner of fuss about the N.F.B. attempting to take over the Minneapolis Society for the Blind. Betty Sue and I had bleeding hearts and we joined the A.C.B. Proxy drive to prevent the N.F.B. from its goal. Since then, we have heard actual accounts of people that have been clients there, and the awful way they are treated. Some of them feel that the only way things will ever be corrected at the Society is for the N.F.B. to assert itself, as it has been effectively doing in Tennessee. Furthermore, the N.F.B. allowed proper A.C.B. representatives to review their Proxy lists, but to my knowledge, to this date, the A.C.B. has not yet submitted to the Court Order to allow the N.F.B. to have the equal privilege.

Also, in the Nash case in Georgia, where the Federation has done such an effective job representing Mrs. Nash, the only two witnesses called to support the Agency against Mrs. Nash were two of our R.S.V.A. members. Has our organization become a vehicle to protect the State Licensing Agencies, rather than an association to work for the rights and best interest of deserving managers? I have observed Mr. McDaniel's unwillingness to move in behalf of managers against the State Agency, and also, his unsuccessful attempts to get things done otherwise, such as his recent appeals case in the Federal Court.

Another deep concern is the involvement of N.A.C. (National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). Not knowing the real intent of N.A.C, I have supported what I believed to be it's goal of updating agencies. I have now learned that it is a group of individuals attempting to place a protective fence around the agencies. This is certainly not conducive to the needs of deserving blind people who fail to receive appropriate services, or to Committees of blind vendors which know the truth about their agency.

Finally, I personally realize that I often hold a minority view among my friends on the R.S.V.A. Board, probably because I do hold more aggressive persuasions synonymous with the N.F.B....

To this date, I can truthfully tell you that my wife (Betty Sue) and I have not joined the National Federation of the Blind. As you may know, she is a member of the National Board of the National Association of Blind Teachers, as well as me a member of the Board of R.S.V.A. We both cherish the friendships of those who voted us into these positions. However, we both have a higher commitment than positions or personal glory. We want to do the most for the cause of blind people, and we are willing to do that whether in roles of leadership or in humble capacities. We were recently told, indirectly, that we are not any longer considered members of the local A.C.B. affiliate. That does not really bother us, because we joined as lifetime members, and up until this time have not asked to be removed from A.C.B. What does bother us is the attitude of A.C.B. and numerous A.C.B.er's toward the very genuine needs of blind people. For example, at a recent A.C.B. chapter meeting, a motion was made by a blind person who is not himself a vendor, that the said chapter donate $100 toward Mr. Atchley's (a private attorney representing the Committee of Blind Vendors) legal fees for services he rendered prior to the N.F.B.'s help. Mr. John Brown, a vendor of many years, moved to table that motion. I simply ask why the Federation has spent thousands of dollars to help us, when the prevailing attitude of A.C.B. is toward supporting the Agency, rather than the blind people. Ione, I do not intend to tell you or anyone else that the N.F.B. is perfect, but Betty Sue and I have discovered that it is the organization attempting to do the most for the blind people, rather than trying to protect the Agency. You are intelligent and I respect you personally, and I am sure that by now you realize that Betty Sue and I are going to be giving up our positions on our A.C.B. affiliated Boards, and leaving the American Council of the Blind to join and work with the National Federation of the Blind. We are not shirking our responsibilities, but rather endeavoring to use our lives in the best interests of our minority people!

I am letting this letter serve as notification to you of the vacancies which my absence will create, and to let you know of our withdrawing from A.C.B. You may share this letter with anyone you wish, as I will be making copies and sharing it, too. There are many blind people who know me, and trust me, and they have a right to know what I am doing and why I am doing it. I do wish to close by reiterating that Betty Sue and I will not be joining with the N.F.B. for the purpose of hurting the people we love in A.C.B. It is our hope that what we can do within the N.F.B. will be of help to all blind people, from coast to coast. I wish that the blind movement could be one in mind and spirit, working together to accomplish the goals and dreams of the majority of blind people, which in my mind, is to live in a country in which sightless individuals can work, live and pursue happiness side by side by normally sighted fold and not be treated as second-class citizens. Ione, you are a woman to be admired, and even though at this point we view things differently, I still hold respect and admiration for you, and I trust that Betty Sue and I will continue to receive the same from you and our other friends. However, if we do not, I do know that God on high knows the desire of our hearts, and I believe history will be candid with our intent and efforts to work toward a freer America for every blind man, woman, boy and girl living within the borders of our great Homeland. So long and may God bless you!

Respectfully,
Curtis M. Shepherd

December 1, 1980

Mrs. Edna Schmidt, President
National Association of Blind Teachers

Dear Edna:

First, let me thank you for your invitation to attend the Semi-Annual Board Meeting of the N.A.B.T. I do wish to advise you that I will not be able to attend, for various reasons including my schedule.

Second, though, there are other reasons which would preclude that I not attend, even if my schedule allowed for it. Through the vendors of Tennessee and their Committee of Blind Vendors, I have had an opportunity to observe the National Federation of the Blind in operation. I have also visited their headquarters in Baltimore, along with my husband. I have had opportunity to learn more about their Blind Teachers Division, and now feel that the American Council of the Blind and their National Association of Blind Teachers are not as progressive in their movement as the N.F.B. Therefore, it would be unfair to both A.C.B. and N.A.B.T., as well as to me, for me to remain affiliated with organizations that are not attempting to do the maximum for the blind. I am of a personal persuasion that blind people need an organization that is willing to actively assert itself in order to bring about needed changes for the visually impaired of our country. Even as a student teacher I have already observed problems imposed on a sightless teacher when they try to function in a world of sight. I understand that folk already in the profession endure many difficulties, mainly because there is not a supporting organization willing to enforce existing laws, and seek progressive change. But, my concern extends to all blind individuals, and I want to be a part of a movement that is sensitive to the needs of all of our people, and that will work effectively towards that end.

Finally, without ill feelings toward anyone, I am submitting my resignation to N.A.B.T., and subsequently to A.C.B. so that I can join forces with the committed blind people working with the N.F.B. to try to make America a better place in which to live, work and enjoy the pursuit of happiness. I shall always remember my friends I have met through A.C.B., because I am not joining the N.F.B. for the purposes of fighting the A.C.B., but rather to work constructively for the cause of all blind people.

Sincerely,
Betty Sue Shepherd

Back to contents

OF ELEGANT ELEPHANTS AND OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THE JACOBUS tenBROEK MEMORIAL FUND

From Lawrence (Muzzy) Marcelino
3315 Cabrillo Street
San Francisco, California

Dear Fellow Federationists:

Half a year has passed since our great 1980 Convention was adjourned. Prior to adjournment the Honor Roll Call of States was held in accordance with the tradition and custom of several years past. Affiliates and chapters are here reminded of their respective pledges. We respectfully request the affiliates to fulfill their pledges as soon as possible if they have not already done so. Make checks payable to: tenBroek Memorial Fund, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Please do not make checks payable to the National Federation of the Blind or put the Federation's name on the checks. These are not donations to the Federation but to the tenBroek Fund.

At our 1981 annual convention not only will the Honor Roll of States be called for contributions and pledges to the tenBroek Memorial Fund but a very Elegant Elephant Sale will once again be held. Federationists are urged to bring all of the truly Elegant Elephants that they can carry. Please do not bring junk! Bring articles that people will want to buy.

It would be most helpful if you would label your articles (notice that I used the plural—not the singular—for we want many) and declare the reasonable price that each should bear.

Back to contents

RECIPE OF THE MONTH

by RAMONA WALHOF

HAMBURGER STROGANOFF

Ingredients:
1 pound ground beef
1 medium onion
¼ green pepper
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 small can mushrooms

Brown the onion and the ground beef in a skillet. Salt and pepper to taste. Then drain off any excess grease. Add the mushroom soup and diced pepper. Simmer ten minutes. Add the mushrooms. Serve over rice or noodles. Add one large dollop of sour cream to each plate when served. For a crowd, double or triple. (Simple and tasty.)

Back to contents

MONITOR MINIATURES

From Jim Schaffer
8512 Remington Lane
Austin, TX

Dear Fellow Federationists,

A Monitor Miniature appeared in the September 1980 Braille Monitor in which I asked about showing in AKC (American Kennel Club) obedience trails. I want to express my appreciation to those who called or wrote about this. I did get a copy of the AKC rules and they are specific on the subject of handicapped handlers.

The AKC obedience regulations state that handicapped handlers who can move about the ring without special assistance, except during the group exercises, shall be allowed to compete. They go on to state that a dog shown by such a handler shall complete all the required parts for that class and shall be penalized for not doing so, just as anyone else would be.

I found that I was treated as an equal as far as judging and scoring was concerned. It seems that so often we expect a battle when none is necessary, and, if my limited experience is any guide, none is necessary here.

From Charles Biebl
6910 Bank Street
Baltimore, MD 21224

Please tell your readers that if any of them would like to receive the entire Braille Bible, King James version, Grade 2 Braille, they should write to me in Braille and request what they want—the entire Braille Bible, or Bible parts (either New or Old Testament). These books will be sent free of charge and will probably arrive a few volumes at a time, not all at once. Nobody will be refused.

From John Knall, President
NFB of Cleveland

Glenn H. Hoffman, Cleveland, Ohio, last surviving blind founder of the NFB died on January 7th of this year, after breaking his hip. He was 91.

He founded the Mutual Federation of the Blind of Ohio in 1937 and was present at the founding of the NFB in 1940 at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He served on the Executive Board of the Federation in the early years. Glenn was involved and active in organizations of the blind since 1906.

The baby boom continues. On January 28, 1981(allegedly at 11:00 in the morning), Joanne Fernandes gave birth to a baby boy. As most Federationists know, Joseph and Joanne Fernandes live in Louisiana. The baby was delivered by Dr. Spencer Lewis, who is the blind physician we have been defending in his battle with the Louisiana State Medical Licensing Board, which made efforts to revoke his license several times last year because of his blindness. Both Dr. Lewis and his patients seem to be happy with his performance. By their actions Joseph and Joanne Fernandes give irrefutable evidence that they believe what they have been saying about the competence of Dr. Lewis. At the critical time they put the life and health of Joanne and the baby on the line. Their actions speak with even more force than their words. At last report both mother and baby were doing well.

NFB of North Dakota state president, Donna Sorenson married John Hemp January 10, 1981. (In Presidential Release #64 we incorrectly reported the name as "Kemp.") The Hemps are making their home in Rugby, North Dakota.

Back to contents