The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for content, style and space available. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, not those of the American Council of the Blind, its staff or elected officials. “The Braille Forum” cannot be responsible for the opinions expressed herein. We will not print letters unless you sign your name and give us your address.
Regarding “SDAB Leads the Way ...”
I have just finished reading the article “SDAB Leads the Way in Preserving Separate State Agency for the Blind in South Dakota” by Charles S.P. Hodge, which appeared in the March issue of “The Braille Forum.”
There have been similar articles in past editions of “The Braille Forum,” all of which contained some inaccurate information that we just chalked up to SDAB advocates not having all the facts. This most recent article by Hodge is so full of misinformation and untruths that I am compelled to respond and I sincerely hope you will print my response so your readers have the benefit of the truth.
One of the few accurate statements Hodge made is that William Janklow is the Republican governor of South Dakota and he is very popular, having served longer than any current sitting governor in the United States. He is also correct that I was appointed cabinet secretary of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in the fall of 1997, October 21st to be exact.
I take issue with his comment: “Jones had no background or experience in dealing with specialized populations or disabled people; rather, his professional reputation was primarily as a businessman and management consultant.” Prior to coming to DHS, I worked for the South Dakota Department of Health (DOH) for 25 years, 16 of those as an appointed division director of that department’s largest division, serving in that capacity under four governors and four different DOH secretaries. I have never been a management consultant, but was in private business in the 1960s and early 1970s. The experience and reputation that I have earned as a long-time state government employee is that of a professional manager and good steward of the taxpayer dollars.
To further clarify my experience with disabled populations, one of the largest programs in the DOH division under my direction was Maternal and Child Health, which also included Children's Special Health Services. This program served children birth to age 18 who suffered long-term, chronic and complex disabling conditions. For many years I was the DOH representative on the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Independent Living Council. In addition, although I have not mentioned this for many years, I have a physical disability myself.
Shortly after starting as secretary of DHS, I was approached by the deaf community with their desire to have a separate division, since the blind had a separate division. I replied that the thrust in government was to consolidate small divisions that served similar populations and not create new specialized divisions. South Dakota simply does not have the population or funding available to do this.
This request prompted our conversation at the April meeting Hodge referred to, in which we approached the board of SBVI to consider creating a Division of Sensory Impairment. Neither Grady Kickul nor I “pressured” the board and they did vote to approve our proposal. I did withdraw that proposal, not out of fear of opposition from the blind community, but rather out of true concern for all people with sensory disabilities. Basically, I could see no value in having the blind and deaf communities compete with each other over valuable but limited resources.
We did have discussions about the feasibility of establishing one Vocational Rehabilitation Division within DHS. These were just internal discussions with no decisions made, so I take issue with Hodge’s statement that “Kickul responded cravenly and falsely.” There were no “plans” at that time; information was still being reviewed and discussed.
Shortly thereafter, we did decide to submit one consolidated plan to RSA. Because I firmly believe staff has the right to know decisions that affect them first, we did have a joint meeting with the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) and Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired (SBVI) staff and informed them of our decision. At the same time this meeting was being held, information was faxed to consumer and advocacy agencies announcing our plans to consolidate. Because I was at that meeting, and Hodge was not, I take issue with his comments about how we dealt with the staff. Staff were never threatened, nor told to stay silent and not oppose our plan, although I found out later that some staff did work behind the scenes to stir up controversy.
Our efforts were not “an attempt to pull a fast one on the blind community.” Public meetings were held across the state where some members of the blind community were very vocal in their opposition. Of interest, though, were several blind people who stayed silent at these meetings even though they had told us privately they supported our efforts. Unfortunately, they were afraid to make public statements of support out of fear of repercussions from the leadership of NFBSD and SDAB. Talk about intimidation and threats!
After the representatives of NFBSD and SDAB met with the governor, I invited them to meet with Grady Kickul, Patty Warkenthien and myself. We wanted to seriously discuss their issues, and see if we could find some common ground and reiterate our assurances that specialized services to the blind would be protected. To my dismay, the state leadership for both of these blind organizations flatly refused to meet with us. In all my years in government, this was the first time I had experienced an outright refusal by anyone to at least be willing to come to the table and talk. Compromise is an art and a process by which people on opposing sides meet and discuss the issues. That certainly did not happen in this case.
Contrary to Hodge’s assertion, staff in RSA told us that our plan amendments were such that they could be approved. Fred Schroeder did enter the picture, which was totally out of protocol in state-federal relations. We all know he did this, not in his role as RSA Commissioner, but rather in his role as hard-line opposition to combined rehabilitation agencies. It is also true that NFBSD retained out-of-state legal counsel, and threatened court action. I firmly believe that we were on sound legal footing and could have won any such action in court. However, as a steward of tax dollars, I could not allow precious dollars to be spent on legal actions, as the money to defend the suit would have come from the rehabilitation divisions. This would have taken money from consumer services, and would have negatively affected the very population we are committed to serve.
Consequently, I did reverse my earlier decision to combine the rehabilitation agencies and we submitted technical state plan amendments, which preserve the separate status of the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the Division of Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired.
I want to assure you I was not “smarting from losing my reorganization objectives by rewarding my loyal lieutenant Kickul by promoting him to the vacant position of director of the larger division.” In fact, the position was not vacant at all. Patty Warkenthien served as the interim director of that division for one and a half years. We advertised the position of Director of the Division of Rehabilitation Services throughout the state. When all was said and done, and applicants interviewed, it was clear that Grady Kickul was the top choice. He had a long history as a successful director of SBVI, knew RSA requirements backwards and forward, was our point person on work force development, and had the reputation of being very concerned about services to people with disabilities of all types, including blindness.
Nor is Hodge’s characterization of Patty Warkenthien as having no professional rehabilitation experience or expertise in working with people who are blind accurate. Warkenthien was interim director of DRS for a considerable length of time and during that time effectively directed the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Warkenthien and Kickul are seasoned administrators, and both will do their utmost with the resources they have available to them.
We were not able to carry forward with what I believe was a sound plan for rehabilitation services in South Dakota. However, I do not carry a grudge in spite of Hodge’s assertions, and we do not intend “to teach those uppity blind folks a lesson or two.” DHS is a very professional department, managed by sincere professional staff. We never lose sight of our responsibilities and commitments to provide quality services in a fiscally responsible manner to the individuals we serve.
In closing, I’d like to share some comments Warkenthien made to me.
“Public articles of the nature of those published in ‘The Braille Forum’ do more harm than good to the service delivery system for persons with disabilities in South Dakota. By criticizing the current administration, stating half-truths and inserting personal opinion based on ‘guesses,’ the statements in the article will harbor bad feelings in consumers towards the administrations of DRS and SBVI.
“Is that what we want? Is that truly the ‘victory’ the blind consumers in South Dakota were setting as their goal? A true victory is a positive success story of an individual with a disability who has gained self-esteem, independent living skills, self-advocacy skills, training, education, knowledge and employment. On the day that is no longer happening in South Dakota, then criticize us. Unless that happens, we need to put all of the past behind us and work together towards a bright future for all South Dakotans with disabilities.”
I submit to you that this is very wise advice. I feel the editor of “The Braille Forum” and Charles S.P. Hodge in particular should take stock in what is written and published, and ask what is the goal of publishing such an article. One way to demonstrate your commitment to educating your readers to the issues is to publish this letter in the next edition.
— John N. Jones, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Human Services, Pierre, S.D.
For many years I have been reading “The Braille Forum” and after reading the article in the March issue “SDAB Leads the Way in Preserving Separate State Agency for the Blind in South Dakota,” I ask that you remove my name from your mailing list and discontinue sending me future issues.
The article in the March edition included significant amounts of information that was incorrect and unnecessarily criticizing people who are citizens of South Dakota and work hard for South Dakota taxpayers. These individuals are responsible to the taxpayers of South Dakota, not Charles Hodge.
I hope in the future that articles in “The Braille Forum” become more accurate and professional.
— Bernie Grimme, Pierre, S.D.