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 ...”
As co-president of the South Dakota Association of the Blind (SDAB), I am writing in response to the article entitled “SDAB Leads the Way in Preserving Separate State Agencies for the Blind in South Dakota.”
The original intent of the article written by Charlie Hodge, a current and highly regarded member of the SDAB, was to inform the ACB membership that by working together, the SDAB and the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota (NFBSD) saved our state agency for the blind from being combined with the general rehabilitation agency. We do apologize for any offensive grammatical errors, but there are no “half truths” as we see it.
In the response by John Jones, Secretary of the South Dakota Division of Human Services, printed in the May issue of this magazine, I take issue with his comment that “the state leadership of both of these blind organizations flatly refused to meet with us.” As president of SDAB, I did decline the meeting because the administration of the South Dakota Services to the Blind and Visually Impaired had already been invited to attend and meet with us at our upcoming state convention in Brookings in early September. I’ve attended every SDAB convention since 1972, and this was the first time that a representative from the administration of SBVI did not participate at our convention. The reason given for non-attendance was “a heavy workload.”
At this time, I publicly invited Patty Warkenthien and other SBVI staff members to attend the upcoming SDAB convention, which will be held in Sioux Falls October 6-8, 2000.
I did agree with Warkenthien that we need to put the past behind us in order to work toward a brighter future for all South Dakotans with disabilities. However, for her to perform her duties in the capacity of director of SBVI, I urge her to spend a significant amount of time familiarizing herself with the “skills of blindness” at the Rehabilitation Center for the Blind in Sioux Falls. This will help her perform her job duties in a more empathetic, effective manner. Last November, via phone conference, Patty assured me and other SDAB members that this was her intent, but as of this writing, this has not occurred.
In closing, let us put this issue to rest and move forward to serve the blind and visually impaired citizens of South Dakota.
— Dawn Flewwellin, Aberdeen, S.D.
Charlie Hodge responds:
... I have read both Secretary Jones’ and Mr. Grimm’s letters to “The Braille Forum” editor, and I have the following response. First, I believe it is worth noting that Secretary Jones ... does not quarrel with the basic truth and accuracy of the chronology of events regarding his consolidation proposal set forth in my original article. Now, it is true that he does carp around the edges — by, for example, pointing out that he not only had business experience, but also had served as an employee of the South Dakota Department of Health before arriving at his current position. Yet, Secretary Jones does not claim that his prior state government service with the Department of Health in any way qualified him through relevant experience in dealing with the specialized problems of the blind in particular or the disabled in general.
Clearly, my article struck a nerve with Secretary Jones. Why? Well, because the truth often stings or hurts, and I believe that Secretary Jones cannot and should not be proud of his conduct during this unhappy and unfortunate affair.
... I would respectfully suggest to Secretary Jones that we go on to hopefully rebuild some bonds of respect and trust and attempt to best serve the blind consumers of South Dakota. Secretary Jones’ letter does, however, contain one absolute and utter falsehood which must be corrected for the record. Secretary Jones contends that the leadership of SDAB refused to meet with him in the summer of 1999 after the face-to-face meeting with Governor Janklow set forth in my article. Nothing could in actuality be further from the truth. Dawn Flewwellin, the co-president of SDAB, indicated that in light of the state government’s determination to press forward with submission of its state rehabilitation plan amendments including the consolidation proposal, there was little to discuss with Secretary Jones. Flewwellin, however, invited both Director Grady Kickul and Secretary Jones to attend the annual convention of SDAB to be held in mid-September in Brookings. It was Secretary Jones and his lieutenant Grady Kickul who pleaded last-minute work schedule conflicts in refusing to attend SDAB’s 1999 state convention to continue a constructive dialogue. In reality, therefore, it was Secretary Jones and other officials of state government who chose not to meet with the membership of SDAB.
Finally, Secretary Jones would have you believe that I am some ill-informed, outside intermeddling muckraker who is sticking his nose, without invitation, into matters peculiarly within the blindness community of South Dakota. He implies strongly that my article is irresponsible, not trustworthy, and should not be given any credence by those who really were involved in these events or really know the complete story.
First of all, while residing in Arlington, Va., I am a current and long-time dues paying member of SDAB. As a former ACB national officer and board of directors member, I have many friends among the blind community in South Dakota with whom I converse on a regular and ongoing basis. In fact, as a member of SDAB, I was kept fully informed as to developments, and I was asked for policy input and for strategy brainstorming advice by the SDAB officers at several points during the playing out of the consolidation proposal saga in South Dakota. I was and am not the ill-informed, irresponsible, intermeddling outsider depicted by Secretary Jones ...
With respect to Grimm’s letter to “The Braille Forum” editor, I would only point out that Grimm is a sighted employee of the general vocational rehabilitation division of the South Dakota Department of Human Services which would have been enlarged and enhanced in importance under Secretary Jones’ consolidation proposal. Just perhaps this fact explains his support of the consolidation proposal and his outrage at my article detailing how that proposal was defeated.
In closing, I hope that a separate and distinct administrative unit for the provision of rehabilitation services has been preserved within South Dakota state government through the hard work of SDAB members and others in the organized blind movement in South Dakota, and that we can turn our attention toward the future in building better and stronger programs for the blind of South Dakota. I hope to attend the 2000 SDAB state convention to be held in early October in Sioux Falls. I hope that Secretary Jones and other responsible officials within South Dakota state government will also, unlike last year, attend this important meeting to continue the process of building a constructive dialogue between blind consumers and responsible officials within South Dakota state government. I plan to be there, and I challenge Secretary Jones to show up as well.
— Charles S.P. Hodge, Arlington, Va.
Regarding Dori
I am concerned about Sarah Blake’s April 2000 “Braille Forum” article about The Seeing Eye. Her comment about the schedule during class is misleading, and could very well leave a reader with the idea the school is very institutionalized. The article makes it sound like the schedule is there for no apparent reason. This could not be further from the truth.
Everything in The Seeing Eye’s curriculum is carefully designed to facilitate bonding with the dog. Yes, the fact that there may be as many as 24 graduates in a class does require structure, but there is much information which needs to be communicated during a 28-day period to ensure that people go home to function safely on the streets.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
— Audley Blackburn, Austin, Texas