by Charles H. Crawford
Recently, in response to reports from some of our members concerning alleged conflicts between certain state agency practices and our 13 principles of consumer cooperation, I sent a memorandum to state agency heads which shared our concerns. I sent the memo in an attempt to provide a general reminder of the 13 principles and to allow for any problems to resolve themselves and thereby prevent unnecessary misunderstandings and problem escalation. Unfortunately, this action prompted criticism from the Federation. Space does not permit me to share with you a full recapitulation of what they had to say, but here, essentially, is the thrust of their reaction:
“Mr. Crawford’s memorandum purports to urge that state agency officials seek even-handed fairness in dealing with consumer organizations, but the purpose of the memorandum is not even-handedness. Mr. Crawford pretends to seek equality of treatment, but his purpose is to prevent collaboration or partnership between rehabilitation agencies and the National Federation of the Blind. However, his effort to divide rehabilitation programs from the Federation will cause serious harm to services for blind people and have dire consequences for agencies and consumers alike.”
My purpose in quoting the Federation response is not to spawn a round of point-counterpoint, but rather to provide you with an understanding of why we need to be clear about the meaning of the 13 principles. If the Federation chooses to see them as some kind of attack, then so be it, but the reality is that these principles serve the Federation as well as they do ACB and other state independent consumer organizations. Let’s look at why.
1. Consumer choice: At the foundation of our 13 principles of consumer cooperation lies the core value that informed consumer choice is our only real guarantee of a responsive state rehabilitation system. How else could a rehab agency honor the principle that consumers have a right to make decisions based upon their exposure to complete and open facts? How else could we claim any legitimacy as a consumer organization to represent our members if our members never had the opportunity to review information from all organizations and thereby be afforded a real choice in joining up?
2. Public accountability: State agencies are instruments of the public will and supported by tax dollars. This means that members of the general public and of course blind consumers of state services have every right to expect that the state will not engage in unfair practices such as favoritism to any particular group. This accountability affords protection against unethical practices or decisions within the state that are based upon anything other than solid professional judgment in partnership with informed choice.
3. The marketplace of ideas: Finally, in this all too brief commentary on our 13 principles, we ensure that decisions made that impact upon our community are the products of a full and free exchange of ideas between consumers and the rehabilitation establishment. There will be times when ACB will find that other ideas may well make more sense than ours, but that is not the point; it is that good faith and open balance within the rehabilitation arena leads to the best we all have to offer, rather than the sterile and constraining products of prescriptive thinking.
There is more that should, and will, be written on this subject, but let us all agree, from any organizational perspective, that the merit of ideas about the rehab system lies in their ability to determine our future and for this impact to take place, we need the balance contained in the ACB 13 Principles of Consumer Cooperation front and center in our rehabilitation system.