by Charles H. Crawford
A few months ago I wrote a memorandum to state rehab agency heads in which I reminded them of our principles of consumer cooperation. While the reception by the agency heads was, for the most part, either neutral or positive, both ACB and I drew a fiery response from NFB President Maurer and especially Jim Gashel. Setting aside the fire and brimstone that must have been intended to emotionally juice up the troops — since it had no intellectual merit or basis beyond what a clearly gullible person might believe — there was a telling and curious line of argument in their response, published for all the world to read in the June “Braille Monitor,” and that argument warrants examination and comment. Here is a definitive quote.
“As to substance, Charlie’s statements about balance are really disingenuous — that is, the only balance with nothing is nothing. I say this because I am unaware of any programs to help blind people that the ACB makes available through collaboration with state agencies or otherwise. However, according to Charlie’s law, agencies should refuse to participate in programs offered by the National Federation of the Blind unless participation is also offered in comparable programs of the ACB. The implication is that collaboration with the NFB when the ACB has no program is a violation of Charlie’s law.
“To tell it like it is, Charlie’s law is just a way for the ACB to claim that it really has positive programs. In fact, collaboration by the ACB in joint efforts of the NFB and state agencies lends legitimacy to the ACB as though it were more than just a silent partner. It doesn’t seem to matter if the collaboration is forced and the ACB contributes little or nothing to the effort.
“This would be fancy footwork indeed if Charlie could convince the agency directors that his law is valid. Besides, by asserting Charlie’s law, there appears to be no downside for the ACB since, either it is asked to join in the collaboration, contributing nothing, or the NFB will be stopped in its tracks. This is the unspoken part of Charlie’s law, and the blind of the state lose out because of it.”
With all due respect, Gashel’s argument might be more relevant to a trade association than a consumer group. Moreover, his reference to “joint efforts by the NFB and state agencies” raises far more critical questions regarding what constitutes an appropriate use of public dollars and how these public funds can be obligated and spent.
ACB has adopted its principles of consumer cooperation with regard to organizations, to ensure that consumer groups have full and balanced access to state rehab agencies because these agencies conduct business of vital interest to our blindness community. Nothing in the principles precludes any consumer organization from holding any event at their own expense and asking the state agency to make the information known. What our principles actually prohibit is the use of public money to endorse or appear to endorse any particular consumer group without affording an equal opportunity to others. This may be a bitter pill for even ACB to swallow, but it is the only fair way to protect consumers from undue influence and to provide us with unbiased information and a range of actual choices. Consistent with these purposes, the principles further protect against bating a consumer to an event advertised for one purpose and then substantially switching to quite another recruitment or propaganda effort. Even in this last context though, there is nothing to prohibit a consumer organization from holding a dance or other neutral activity and letting folks know that there will also be consumer group information available to them.
Gashel’s reasoning brings up an even more serious issue than his stated apprehension that our principles might preclude even a seminar. The substantive issue which is raised with regard to such an activity conflicts with our thirteen principles only when the activity conducted in partnership with a state agency actually leads to a financial benefit for any particular group.
When this kind of thing happens, ACB is right to point out that a state agency has a duty to observe ethics laws that require a number of considerations. We are right, as consumers and as an organization which represents the interests of consumers to express our disagreement with a process whereby a public agency provides entree to the decision-making process to a group which in turn routes consumers to a program offered by that particular group. Such a process obviously constitutes unfair business practices for all other service providers, as well as a serious error in judgment by public administrators, which would be exacerbated by the extent that such administrators have any relationship with the group exercising that degree of influence.
We are equally concerned about a process which leads consumers of rehabilitation services to believe that they are going to receive a particular service which turns out to be characterized by controlling conditions and circumstances about which they had no prior knowledge. These conditions can include denying guide dog users the ability to use their dogs, forcing people with low vision to wear sleep shades, conducting mobility training in circumstances which trainees consider to be unsafe, or subjecting consumers to a regimen of single consumer-group propaganda. Under such conditions, consumers have effectively been denied their rights to informed choice.
In both of these examples the pretense of consumerism is used, not to provide balance or informed choice, but rather to gain unfair advantage.
At the heart of consumerism is the idea that we can establish, maintain and improve a greater quality of life for blind people by uniting together in a common agenda and moving forward in our advocacy. ACB has demonstrated this commitment through its attention to voting rights, a safer environment, access to information, non-discrimination in the workplace, support for the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as intelligent and fair transportation systems, equal access to television programming, increased Social Security benefits, a better program of service to older blind people, an improved rehabilitation law, appropriate and fair treatment on airlines and other transportation conveyances, protection of the rights of blind vending facility operators, access to places of public accommodation, providing for the rights of guide dog users to travel freely to places such as Hawaii, the passage of beneficial laws such as IDEA, the enforcement of civil rights, making sure that assistive technology works and that the people training us to use that technology have the knowledge to do so, and more. No, not all of these are products or services accomplished jointly with state agencies and neither have they made any money for ACB, but they are the results of our promise to consumers, to advance an agenda that will help people who are blind and visually impaired to achieve the quality of life they want and deserve. We have worked with state agencies, the Federation and others to move these advocacy items. There is no pretense here. We simply exist to benefit blind people and while we may not get rich doing it, it remains one of our major reasons for being and is the basis of our principles of consumer cooperation.
The American Council of the Blind principles of consumer cooperation shine more brightly today because they promise all consumers equal access to a public system of rehabilitation that enjoys the trust of taxpayers and consumers alike. The only threat to any other organization is to those who would not keep the promise of what a consumer organization really is.
This is not Charlie’s law, it is simply the right of every blind person to have fair and balanced access to a system that has been created to serve all of us.