by Charles S.P. Hodge
In the fall of 1997, William Janklow, the popular Republican governor of South Dakota, appointed a new cabinet secretary, John Jones, to fill a vacancy to head the South Dakota Department of Human Services. That department had always contained both the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, which administers the general rehab program, and the separate Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (DSBVI). 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.
During the following April, the new secretary attended the meeting of the DSBVI advisory board. Toward the end of the meeting, he amazed those in attendance by suggesting — out of the blue — that certain aspects of the rehabilitation program for the deaf and hard of hearing should be shifted to DSBVI to create a Division for the Sensory Impaired. Secretary Jones and the Director of DSBVI, Grady Kickul, then urged the board to approve this new proposal even though board members had had no prior notice of the proposal and had had no meaningful opportunity to review, digest, and comment intelligently upon the proposal’s merits or shortcomings. Under pressure from the secretary and the director of DSBVI, the board by a narrowly divided vote approved the proposal. However, the leadership of the South Dakota Association of the Blind (SDAB), which is the American Council of the Blind’s South Dakota affiliate, went to work and rallied many blind people who then attended public hearings conducted during June of 1998 to speak out against the proposal. Faced with the nearly unanimous opposition of the blindness community — including a very strongly worded resolution adopted at the 1998 state convention of SDAB — Secretary Jones announced in the fall of 1998 that he was withdrawing his proposal. This first go-round with Jones was unfortunately only a harbinger of bad things to come in 1999.
Throughout the fall and winter and into 1999, at several public meetings, vigilant members of SDAB — sensing that Jones might not be finished with reorganization proposals which could have a negative impact on blind South Dakotans — asked specific questions of DSBVI Director Grady Kickul regarding any other reorganization plans which might be afoot.
Although we can now see, because of our knowledge of subsequent events, that Kickul must have known of such intentions, he responded cravenly and falsely on several documented occasions that he knew of no such reorganization plans.
Then, on April 8, 1999, in a pre-emptive strike designed to thwart any and all opposition, Jones held joint meetings of the staffs of DSBVI and the general rehab division at several sites throughout the state where he announced his intention to submit to the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration amendments to the South Dakota state rehabilitation plan which would disestablish DSBVI, merge it into the general rehabilitation division, and result in one consolidated, umbrella Division of Vocational Rehabilitation within the Department of Human Services.
While some verbal assurances were made that current counselors working in the program for the blind would be allowed to retain their blindness-only caseloads for some unspecified period of time, the merger proposal was presented as a “done deal,” and the staffs of both divisions were warned in no uncertain terms that they would be expected, at worst, to stay silent and not oppose Jones’ amended state plan. This not-too-thinly-veiled threat directed primarily at DSBVI’s current blind employees had the effect of silencing some of the most knowledgeable and articulate blind advocates in the state who just happen to work for DSBVI.
Once again, Jones and Kickul were attempting to pull a fast one on the blind community of South Dakota! Little time was available for the blind community to coordinate a response. Three public hearings on the proposed state rehabilitation plan amendments were scheduled immediately — to be held within a matter of three or four weeks, in Rapid City, Aberdeen and Sioux Falls.
The leadership of the South Dakota Association of the Blind, under this most trying of circumstances, did a magnificent job in turning out blind people, family members, friends and professionals to speak against the proposed state plan amendments.
Nonetheless, SDAB could not have won the battle by itself. Blind people from every corner of the state, including members of the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota (NFBSD), testified at the public hearings. Their testimony reflected the nearly unanimous opposition in the blindness community to Jones’ and Kickul’s proposed state plan amendments.
In June of 1999, two momentous events occurred. First, SDAB co-president Dawn Flewwellin had the initiative to gain an audience face-to-face with Governor Janklow. At the meeting with the governor, despite defending Jones’ proposed state rehabilitation plan amendments, Janklow agreed to listen carefully to and consider the views of the representatives present from both SDAB and NFBSD. The blind advocates from both major consumer organizations voiced their continuing unified objections to merging DSBVI into the general rehabilitation agency. While not yielding any ground specifically, the governor indicated that he and Jones would want to talk further with the leadership of the blind community.
The second important event took place at the DSBVI advisory board meeting in June 1999. Persuaded by the personal and emotional appeals of two SDAB members, chairwoman Linda Bifford and board member Lou Brush (who happens to be Flewwellin’s father), the state rehabilitation advisory council for the blind voted unanimously to oppose Jones’ state rehabilitation plan amendments. Because of the expanded powers granted to rehabilitation advisory councils in the 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, this vote of disapproval by the rehabilitation advisory council for the blind dealt the proposed amendments a virtual veto blow.
Despite this critical vote by the advisory council, Janklow, Jones and Kickul forged ahead, submitting their proposed state rehabilitation plan amendments to the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration's regional office in Denver, Colo., on August 1, 1999. While we are not privy to direct evidence of the following — and thus must make an educated guess — as to what happened, the officers of SDAB and I believe that RSA Commissioner Fred Schroeder and/or his Denver regional office communicated with the governor, and indicated that, in light of the disapproval of the designated rehabilitation advisory council for the blind, and the nearly unanimous opposition among blind citizens of South Dakota, reflected irrefutably in the records of the public hearings, RSA was not likely to review and analyze the South Dakota submission favorably.
While we have no direct evidence of this fact, we do know that RSA’s SDAB officers were aware that the NFBSD had retained legal counsel, and we believe that the NFBSD may well have threatened to bring state and/or federal court actions in order to block or forestall the proposed state rehabilitation plan amendments. In any event, shortly before the end of August 1999, Jones announced that the state of South Dakota had withdrawn its proposed state rehabilitation plan amendments and would be submitting only technical state plan amendments. The separate status of the Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired was, therefore, preserved.
This dramatic turn-about and victory against tremendous political odds proves that blind people working together can win major political victories.
While SDAB and its elected leadership played a pivotal and, I believe, key role in spearheading the actions necessary to win this important battle, there is no doubt whatsoever that the willingness of SDAB’s officers to reach out and work with the NFBSD was also crucial in tipping the scales toward victory for the blind of South Dakota. The ACB members in South Dakota don’t mind sharing the credit for this momentous and monumental victory against all political odds.
Unfortunately, however, SDAB cannot sit back and rest on its laurels. Smarting from losing his reorganization objectives for the second time, Jones rewarded his loyal lieutenant, Kickul, by promoting him to the vacant position of director of the larger Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Despite Governor Janklow’s personal assurances that Jones and Kickul would be contacting the leadership of the blind community to continue a constructive dialogue, when both were invited to attend and participate in the 1999 SDAB state convention, which was scheduled to be held at Brookings in mid-September, both men found at the very last minute that their personal schedules were so crowded that it was impossible for either one of them to attend or participate in the SDAB convention. An outside observer has to wonder how sincere are the stated intentions of these state officials to continue a constructive dialogue with the blind constituency in South Dakota.
Then Jones appointed Patty Warkenthien, a young woman with no professional rehabilitation experience or expertise in working with people who are blind, to be the director of DSBVI. Apparently, Janklow, Jones, and Kickul have decided that if the blind insist on having their own separate agency, then they will give us what we want, but out of sheer spite and vengeance, it will only be a bureaucratic backwater with no effective leadership.
So it seems that it will be up to the blind citizenry of South Dakota to educate Warkenthien and help her to deliver quality services for the blind out of their agency, even if the leadership in state government is bound and determined to teach those uppity blind folks a lesson or two. With grit, cooperation, unity and determination, the blind community of South Dakota, I predict, will continue to succeed in overcoming any challenges Jones and his lieutenants place in their way.