The Braille Forum Vol. XIX August, 1980 No. 2 Director of Public Affairs Named to ACB Staff Department of Labor Decides Minimum Wage Issue for Blind Workers Published Monthly by the American Council of the Blind Mary T. Ballard, Editor ***** * National Office: Durward K. McDaniel National Representative 1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 506 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 833-1251 * Editor, The Braille Forum: Mary T. Ballard 190 Lattimore Road Rochester, NY 14620 (716) 244-8364 ** Contributing Editors George Card 605 South Few Street Madison, WI 53703 Elizabeth Lennon 1315 Greenwood Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007 ** ACB Officers * President: Oral O. Miller 3701 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 236 Washington, DC 20008 * First Vice President: Delbert K. Aman 115 Fifth Avenue, S.E. Aberdeen, SD 57401 * Second Vice President: Dr. Robert T. McLean 2139 Joseph Street New Orleans, LA 70115 * Secretary: M. Helen Vargo 833 Oakley Street Topeka, KS 66606 * Treasurer: James R. Olsen 6211 Sheridan Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55423 The Braille Forum seeks to promote the independence and dignity of all blind people; to stress responsibility of citizenship; to alert the public to the abilities and accomplishments of the blind. The Braille Forum carries official news of the American Council of the Blind and its programs. It is available for expression of views and concerns common to all blind persons. ***** ** Contents ACB Officers Report from the ACB President, Oral O. Miller Director of Public Affairs Joins ACB Staff Disability Insurance Amendments Become Law, by Kathy Megivern DOL Decides Minimum Wage Issue for Blind Workers, by Durward K. McDaniel Helen Keller Centennial Congress -- A Blueprint for the Future, by William T. Snyder From the Archives: Urgent Bulletin from the Federation Free Press Association Letter from George Card A Real Challenge to Section 504, by Reese Robrahn Fair Housing Legislation: Correction and Update, by Kathy Megivern Wake Up! It Can Happen If You Let It Happen, by Patricia Price "Bottlers Charity and Subsidy Act" Passed by Congress 1981 Ski for Light International Event Here and There, by Elizabeth M. Lennon Notice to Subscribers ***** ** Report from the ACB President, Oral O. Miller By the time this issue of The Braille Forum is in the hands of its readers, the 1980 ACB national convention will be in the past, and, although it has not taken place as of the date this report is being written, all indications are that the 1980 national convention will be the largest in our history and perhaps the best to date. Actual registration is running well ahead of all prior years, and there has been unbelievably good response to the various educational and recreational tours scheduled during Convention Week -- to the extent that many extra buses have been rented to accommodate the anticipated crowds. I urge you to read the convention article in the next issue of The Braille Forum and to study the thought-provoking resolutions which I am confident will be passed by the membership during the convention. During the weekend of June 12-13, 1980, it was my pleasure to represent the American Council of the Blind at the meeting of the North America and Oceania Regional Committee of the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, held in New York City. The region is made up of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most of the island archipelagos of the South Pacific. The meeting, which was presided over by Regional Chairman John Wilson of Australia, concentrated upon the ways in which the more advanced nations may assist the developing nations and peoples to better serve the needs of their blind citizens. The objective of providing greater assistance to developing peoples was emphasized at the 1979 international assembly of the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, held in Antwerp, Belgium, and as far as we know, the New York meeting was the first such regional meeting for the members of the North America and Oceania Region. It was emphasized during the regional meeting that assistance should be on all levels -- government to government, organization to organization (if organizations of the blind exist in developing lands), and people to people. Future issues of The Braille Forum will contain further information concerning the projects undertaken as a result of the cooperation exemplified at the New York meeting. The leadership training seminar conducted jointly by the American Council of the Blind and the Illinois Federation of the Blind in Chicago during April of 1980 was a tremendous step forward in the area of consumer training. But during the long weekend of June 19-22, 1980, the Florida Council of the Blind also took an enormous step forward by conducting, with the assistance of a CETA grant, a workshop designed to provide leadership training and employment training information to the eligible blind of Florida. The seminar conducted lectures, demonstration periods, and question-and-answer sessions on such invaluable and practical topics as Section 504 and employment advocacy techniques, Social Security and related benefit programs, organizational techniques and the achievement of goals. Reese Robrahn and Donna Eggert of the ACB national staff and I were pleased to serve as instructors and speakers at the workshop, which was followed immediately by the state convention of the Florida Council of the Blind. Both the seminar and the state convention were very successful, and I want to give my commendations and a tip of the hat to FCB President Don Cameron and Seminar Coordinator Thomas Williams. This report cannot be concluded without making at least a brief reference to the Helen Keller Centennial Congress, held in Boston the week of June 22-28. The week featured, besides the Helen Keller Centennial sessions themselves, the national conventions and other conferences of almost every organization involved in work with the blind in the United States -- such as the Association of Radio Reading Services, the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind of America, the Association of Educators of the Visually Handicapped, the American Association of Workers for the Blind, the National Accreditation Council, and the Association of National Library Service Librarians, to name only a few. While the Congress is described further in a separate article in this issue, I want to commend all of the ACB members who participated in the countless workshops, seminars, demonstrations, and lectures that made up the week-long, packed schedule of activities. It was my pleasure to chair the concurrent workshop concentrating upon the college years of the blind and to speak at the issues forum sponsored by the Bay State Council of the Blind, ACB's Massachusetts affiliate, later that week. Space will not allow me to name all the ACB members who played very important roles in the other meetings and workshops. I truly believe that our participation added significantly to the success of the Congress, the purpose of which was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Helen Keller. ***** ** Director of Public Affairs Joins ACB Staff On July 9, 1980, ACB President Oral O. Miller announced the appointment of Edward LeMoine of Bridgeport, Connecticut, to the newly created position of ACB Director of Public Affairs. Mr. LeMoine's appointment came after a lengthy recruitment process which involved applications from more than twenty applicants. Mr. LeMoine, in joining the ACB national staff, brings to the position a wide range of professional and community activity experience. Before joining the ACB staff, he served as Chairman of the Fair Housing Commission of the City of Bridgeport, and before that as the Affirmative Action Officer for the Connecticut State Board of Education and Services for the Blind. Previously he served also as Director of the Office of Handicapped Services for the City of Bridgeport, as an Administrative Assistant in the office of the Clerk for the City of Bridgeport, and as a member of the teaching staff of the Bridgeport Hospital School of X-Ray Technology. He is a graduate of the Oak Hill School for the Blind in Connecticut and the University of Connecticut School of Business Administration. Mr. LeMoine's new duties will include the formulation and direction of ACB's public information and public education program, as well as the provision of technical assistance to members and affiliate organizations. Mr. LeMoine, who served as Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Connecticut Council of the Blind, plans to attend the 1980 ACB national convention as chairman of the Connecticut Council delegation. He looks forward to meeting and working closely with the ACB membership. ***** ** Disability Insurance Amendments Become Law By Kathy Megivern The Braille Forum has reported at length on the status of H.R. 3236, the Disability Insurance Amendments of 1980, as it progressed through the House of Representatives and the Senate. The American Council of the Blind, along with nearly every other organization representing handicapped and elderly people, ardently opposed this legislation because of two very negative provisions limiting the benefits of future disabled recipients. Despite the well organized and vocal opposition, the bill was signed into law by President Carter on June 9, 1980. The new law, P.L. 96-265, contains the two negative provisions about which so much has been written, but it also includes some improvements in both the Supplemental Security Income and the Social Security Disability Insurance programs. The major provisions of interest to Braille Forum readers are outlined below: Limit on Family Disability Insurance Benefits. -- The law will establish a maximum limitation on benefits payable to a disabled worker and his family. Under this limitation, the family benefits may not exceed the lesser of 85% of the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) on which the worker's disability benefit is based, or 150% of the disability benefit payable to the worker alone. This provision will not operate to reduce any family's benefit below 100% of the benefit which would be payable to the worker alone, and it will apply only to workers who become entitled to disability benefits after June 30, 1980. Reduction in Dropout Years. -- It will limit the number of years of low earnings or no earnings which a disabled worker may drop out from his wage history when averaging his income for purposes of determining the benefit amount. Under prior law, all workers were permitted to drop out the five lowest years of earnings. Under the new law, the number of dropout years allowed to a worker will be scaled according to his age under the following schedule: If the worker is under 27, zero dropout years; 27-31, one dropout year; 32-36, two dropout years; 37-41, three dropout years; 42-46, four dropout years; 47 and over, five dropout years. The limitation on the number of dropout years will apply only to workers who first become entitled to disability insurance benefits after June 30, 1980. Elimination of Second Medicare Waiting Period. -- Health insurance coverage under the Social Security Medicare program is available to individuals who receive disability insurance benefits, but only after they have received those benefits for at least 24 months. An individual who ceases to be a beneficiary because he returns to work uses both cash benefits and Medicare entitlement. If he subsequently finds it necessary to re-apply for disability insurance benefits, he must again wait 24 months before the Medicare coverage is resumed. The new law will eliminate this second 24-month period for persons who become re-entitled to disability benefits within five years after the end of a previous period of entitlement (within seven years in the case of disabled widows or widowers and disabled children). Extension of Medicare for Additional 36 Months. -- In addition to eliminating the requirement for a second waiting period, the new law will allow Medicare coverage to continue for a total of 36 months after an individual ceases to receive cash benefits because he has returned to work. This change will be effective for disabled workers whose disabilities have not been determined to have ceased prior to the six months after enactment of the law. Benefits for Individuals Who Engage in Employment Activity. -- H.R. 3236 will establish a three-year work incentive demonstration program to examine the desirability and feasibility of providing certain benefits and services to persons with severe handicaps who would not be considered disabled under existing programs because they are able to engage in substantial work activity, despite their medical impairments. Under present law, an individual is ineligible for disability benefits if he has the capacity to perform any substantial gainful activity (SGA). Regulations establish a dollar amount for earnings to define the SGA limit. Currently, this is $300 a month. This change in the law would make benefits for individuals on the SSI disabled rolls equivalent to benefits for those on the SSI aged or blind rolls. Disabled beneficiaries on the special SSI payment would continue to be entitled to Medicaid coverage and social services under Title XX of the Social Security Act, under criteria established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another pilot demonstration program established by the law would allow individuals whose earnings exceed the SGA limit for entitlement to SSI benefits to receive Medicaid and social services benefits if the absence of these services would significantly inhibit continued employment. Employment in Sheltered Workshops. -- The new law modifies the treatment of remuneration paid to individuals who work in sheltered workshops so as to make it eligible for the earned-income disregard provisions of the SSI program. This change will be effective as of October, 1980. Deeming of Parents' Income to Disabled or Blind Children. -- H.R. 3236 will modify the SSI rules related to the deeming of parents' income to eligible children so that deeming will cease when the child reaches age 18, so that deeming will not apply in the case of children age 18 to 21 who are in school, as is presently the case. The provision will be effective as of October, 1980. Termination of Benefits for Persons Undergoing Vocational Rehabilitation. -- The new law will allow for continued payment of SSI or disability benefits to enable an individual to complete a program of vocational rehabilitation, even though he has medically recovered from his disability. This provision will apply only if the Commissioner of Social Security determines that completion of the program will make it more likely that the individual will be permanently removed from the disability rolls. This generally would be limited to instances in which the medical recovery could not have been anticipated. Treatment of Extraordinary Work Expenses. -- The new law will permit SSI and disability insurance beneficiaries to deduct from their earnings an amount equal to what they pay for extraordinary work expenses which are necessitated by their disability (including attendant care costs and the cost of medical devices, equipment, drugs, and services). The Secretary of Health and Human Services is to prescribe regulations limiting allowable deductions to those which are necessary for employment and to establish reasonable limits on the amounts deductible. The deduction will be allowed in determining whether the individual is able to engage in substantial gainful activity for purposes of the DI and SSI programs and in determining the benefit amount for an SSI recipient. This provision applies to SSDI beneficiaries who are blind or otherwise disabled. It will apply only to individuals already on the SSI or SSDI rolls, not to applicants, in determining substantial gainful activity. Trial Work Period and Re-Entitlement to Benefits. -- Under both the SSI and DI programs, an individual who continues to suffer from a severe medical disability and to meet other eligibility requirements is allowed to engage in employment for up to nine months without losing eligibility because of the fact that he has regained the ability to work. At the end of this nine-month trial work period, if the individual is continuing to engage in substantial gainful activity, benefits are paid for three additional months and then are terminated. The new law will provide for continuing technical eligibility for benefits for fifteen months after the end of the nine-month trial work period. Administration by State Agencies. -- The new law will revise the statutory basis for the arrangements by which state disability determination services undertake to make findings of disability, for purposes of the Federal programs of SSI and DI. Under the bill, these findings will be made by such state agencies, in accord with regulations or other written guidelines issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Agreements may be terminated upon written notice by the state or upon a finding by the Secretary that the state is failing to make disability determination in accordance with the regulations. In either case, the change from state to Federal administration would take place only after a period of at least 180 days. Federal Review of State Agency Decisions. -- H.R. 3236 will require the Department of Health and Human Services to reinstitute its former practice of reviewing determinations made by state agencies to the effect that individuals are or continue to be disabled for purposes of SSI and DI benefit payments. These reviews will be made prior to awarding benefits in the case of initial claims and reconsiderations, and the Department will be required to review at least 15% of such determinations made in fiscal 1981, 35% made in fiscal 1982, and 65% made in subsequent years. Information to Accompany Secretary's Decision. -- H.R. 3236 will require that SSI and DI notices of denial to claimants include an understandable explanation of the Secretary's decision and the basis for that decision. This provision is effective 13 months following enactment. P.L. 96-265 contains other administrative improvements in the SSI, SSDI, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. It provides for reimbursement of overpayments made to persons who receive both SSI and Social Security benefits. It also requires aliens to reside in the United States for at least three years before becoming entitled to SSI benefits. The changes in the financing method of the beneficiary rehabilitation program which had been included in the House-passed version of H.R. 3236 were not in the final bill as signed by the President. In response to the criticism of the benefit ceiling and dropout provisions contained in this new law, President Carter said: "I will expect the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate carefully its effect on new beneficiaries and be prepared to recommend any changes that may be needed ..." ***** ** DOL Decides Minimum Wage Issue for Blind Workers By Durward K. McDaniel On July 1, 1980, the Department of Labor released its May 27 decision denying the petition of the National Federation of the Blind, in which it had asked for rules to be issued which would require the payment of no less than minimum wage to all blind workers. That decision, reprinted below, is directed to James Gashel of the NFB. At the meeting on July 1, DOL officials discussed the "experiment" referred to, saying that beginning this fall, blind workers who have no other handicap will be paid no less than 70% of the minimum wage, with periodic increases which will bring wages up to the minimum within four years. Blind workers who begin work later will receive no less than 50% of the minimum, with periodic increases which will bring them up to the minimum wage. The "experiment" was described as "voluntary," but when a workshop representative said that there would be no volunteers, DOL officials said that it would apply to all employers, both workshops and regular industry. The stated reason for the experiment is to find out if arbitrary increases in pay will cause blind workers to produce more. The DOL proposes that each employer would absorb the wage increases without financial help from DOL. No answer was given to a question asked about termination of employment of blind workers who would be part of the experiment. The DOL annually issues subminimum wage certificates to qualifying employers, permitting the payment of less than the minimum wage to handicapped workers based on their productivity. Presumably, DOL could be thinking of withholding such certificates as a coercive lever to obtain "volunteers" for its experiment. DOL admittedly does not know how many blind workers would be affected by the experiment. In any event, it appears that DOL may attempt to do by experiment what it says it lacks the legal authority to do by rule and regulation, namely, require the payment of the minimum wage to blind workers, but only to those who have no other handicap. This writer believes that the DOL is merely shadow boxing around the law which cannot be changed without a Congressional amendment. * May 27, 1980 Dear Mr. Gashel: This is in further response to the petition you filed on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind to have the Department revise regulations, Volume 29 of the Code 0f Federal Regulations, at Parts 524 and 525, so that no certificates authorizing special lower minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act could be issued for blind or otherwise visually handicapped workers. We are sympathetic with your concerns about the welfare of blind and otherwise visually handicapped workers, and have reviewed the entire testimony thoroughly in an attempt to determine in what ways the pay standards for these workers can be improved within the framework of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We regret, however, that we cannot grant the petition. The evidence at the hearing indicated that the employment opportunities of at least some blind workers, particularly those with multiple handicaps, would be curtailed if they had to be paid the statutory minimum wage. Even more importantly, adoption of a policy requiring that all blind workers must be paid the statutory minimum wage without exception would not be in accord with the provisions of Section 14(c). Under that section, where an employer can show that a blind or visually handicapped worker meets the statutory tests, the employer is entitled to pay less than the minimum wage, and the Department cannot prevent that result. Thus, where a worker's productivity is low because of a physical or mental impairment and the worker's employment opportunities would be curtailed if he or she had to be paid the statutory minimum wage, we would not have the authority to require the employer to pay the statutory minimum wage to that worker. However, in view of the testimony presented at the hearing, it appears desirable to test a wage payment system that would provide wage increases for blind and visually handicapped workers who have no significant impairment other than a visual one. Consequently, we intend to conduct an experimental program in regular programs in workshops and in competitive industry under which the special lower minimum wage would be progressively increased by fixed percentages of the statutory minimum wage. The experimental program would be limited to workers who have a single handicap of blindness or visual impairment. After four years, such workers would be entitled to the statutory minimum wage. (The regular program is for the more productive workers where there currently is a guaranteed minimum of at least 50% of the minimum wage.) Provision would be made for individual exceptions where the workshop or other employer could show that an exception is warranted because of likely curtailment of employment opportunity, and the affected worker agrees with the assessment by co-signing the request for exception. On the other hand, the commensurate wage principle will still apply to blind workers whose productivity is greater than the group rate specified in the experimental program. Such workers must be paid wages which reflect their productivity. In conjunction with the experimental program, we would also do a study to test the effects of the program particularly on the employment opportunities for blind people. We will closely monitor this program, follow up immediately on any complaints received, and ensure that the rights of blind workers are protected to the full extent of the law. In this connection, we would request that your organization bring to our attention any situation that you feel does not conform to the requirements of the law and the experimental program. We will advise those who participated in the hearings, as well as other organizations and proposals, about our plans. Sincerely, Donald Elisburg Assistant Secretary ***** ** Helen Keller Centennial Congress -- A Blueprint for Future By William T. Snyder More than two thousand blind and deaf-blind individuals and professionals in a wide variety of services to the blind and deaf-blind met in Boston from June 21 through June 28, 1980, to attend the Helen Keller Centennial Congress and related meetings. This was certainly the largest gathering of people interested in the blind and deaf-blind ever held. The Congress was planned and sponsored by the American Foundation for the Blind, with co-sponsorship by more than two dozen organizations and associations working in the interests of the blind and deaf-blind. More than one hundred meetings and seminars devoted to improving services to the blind and deaf-blind were held in an eight-day period, and every special-interest group in health, education, social service, rehabilitation, employment, and care for hearing and visually impaired persons was provided an opportunity to exchange thoughts and devise new methods of service. In addition, the largest variety of exhibitions of products and services to meet the unique needs of blind and deaf-blind persons ever presented was available to those attending the Congress. The basic themes of the Congress were set in five general sessions. The first dealt with Helen Keller as an individual. This opening session featured comments by Jansen Noyes, Jr., Chairman of the Board, American Foundation for the Blind and Helen Keller International, and a man who worked with Miss Keller. In addition, there were comments by Joseph P. Lash, author of the recently published Helen and Teacher; a poem, "Helen Keller's Legacy," written and presented by Robert J. Smithdas, Director of Community Education, Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults; and a keynote personal reminiscence of his work and friendship with Helen Keller by Eric T. Boulter, Director General of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in London, England. Slides and photographs were used at the opening of all general sessions of the Congress to graphically describe incidents and events in Helen Keller's life. Interpreters for the deaf were used throughout the general sessions and in most meetings where deaf persons were present. The only major oversight in planning and carrying out the Congress was the omission of oral description of the many photographic illustrations used so blind persons present in Boston's Hynes Auditorium were uninformed about the graphics. Fortunately for those blind persons who remained at home and listened to the daily broadcasts of the Helen Keller Centennial Congress over stations of the Public Broadcasting Service, good descriptions of the illustrative matter were given on the radio. Programs related to health care, general training, and education in the early years of life were discussed by J.M. (Max) Woolly, Superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind., John W. Melcher, Supervisor of the Early Childhood Program in the Division for Handicapped Children of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, and Edwin Martin, Ph.D., newly named Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. Wednesday's general session on the working years was chaired by Mary K. Bauman, Executive Secretary of the Association for Educators of the Visually Handicapped, and featured an address by Jayne Baker Spain, Ph.D., Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. Mrs. Spain spoke from the point of view of an industrialist who had employed blind persons in her own company, a director of large corporations who had initiated employment programs for handicapped individuals, and a government official interested in furthering opportunities for employment of blind and other handicapped persons. Blindness in the later years of life was the subject of the fourth general session, chaired by Roy Kumpe, President of International Services for the Blind. The speaker was Robert N. Butler, M.D., Director of the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Butler recognized and analyzed the problems of blindness in the aging population and discussed current and proposed research programs to alleviate or reduce the incidence rate. He also discussed the unique needs of elderly persons with visual impairments. "Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities" was the theme of the final general session. As chairman of the session, Louis H. Rives, Jr., Administrator, Arkansas Office for the Blind and Visually Impaired, outlined patterns of legislation to serve needs of blind and handicapped persons. Wilbur J. Cohen, Ph.D., former Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and executive in the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, who is now Professor of Public A ff airs at the L.B.J. School of Public Affairs, University of Texas spoke on the special problems of, securing our Social Security and stopping the erosion of programs to assist the handicapped, and aged members of society. Immediately following each of the four themed general sessions, there were twelve concurrent workshops dealing with specific aspects of problems relating to (a) "The Early Years," (b) "The Working Years," (c) "The Later Years," and (d) "Rights, Privileges and Responsibilities." In addition, special-interest organizations held working sessions in the afternoons and evenings throughout the week of the Helen Keller Centennial Congress. The week of planning and discussion ended with a program of musical entertainment and comedy performed by blind artists and a dance on Friday night, June 27. As June 27, 1980 marked the 100th anniversary of Helen Keller's birth, this was the date that the new U.S. postage stamp featuring Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan went on sale at Miss Keller's birthplace in Tuscumbia, Alabama. Most sessions of the Helen Keller Centennial Congress were recorded by representatives of the Public Broadcasting Service, and key talks will be published by the American Foundation for the Blind. Persons interested in purchasing cassettes of the conference or the printed report can secure information about price and time of availability from Ms. Marion Wurster, American Foundation for the Blind, 15 W. 16th Street, New York, NY 10011. ***** *** From the Archives: Urgent Bulletin from the Federation Free Press Association In the July issue of The Braille Forum, the first of two "Archives" articles was published concerning the controversy over finances in the National Federation of the Blind between 1955 and 1961. In this second article, letters and excerpts of letters are presented in order to show the precise nature of the controversy at the time of the Santa Fe convention in 1959. At the Boston convention in 1958, there occurred the first open debate on the floor of any magnitude. This came about through the introduction of a resolution censuring the Illinois affiliate for carrying out an investigation concerning President Jacobus tenBroek and publishing its findings. One of the major topical areas of this investigation dealt with President tenBroek's financing of an addition to his house, discussed in "The Turning Point" (see "From the Archives," June, 1980). Also, the Card Amendment had vested more power and control in the president than ever had rested there through the constitution until that time. Finally, as a compromise measure, the Committee on Budget and Finance was formed to update and make comprehensible the Administration's income and expenditures for each NFB fiscal year. There came to be two different interpretations of the work to be performed by this committee. One was propagated by committee chairman Kenneth Jernigan; the other by Walter McDonald, President of the Georgia Federation of the Blind. McDonald was a highly respected member of the NFB and had long held out as a tenBroek supporter after the ranks began to split. His support had led him to oppose a motion within the Board of Directors to supply all Board members with copies of monthly financial statements of the NFB and was responsible for his being placed on the Budget and Finance Committee. His public denunciation of this committee which appears below came, then, as a great shock to the Administration and its supporters. Events which led to McDonald's public statement began when Dr. tenBroek sent a communication to the affiliate presidents on June 3, 1959. In this letter, recommendations were discussed which had been offered the NFB by a firm of certified public accountants, Harvey Eder and Company, of St. Louis, Missouri, which had been retained by the organization. Two major recommendations were discussed. The first was "that state affiliates supply complete data to the Federation with respect to the expenditure of greeting card money, (and that) their accounting periods should be made the same as those of the National Federation." The second recommendation was the one which would cause the storm of controversy. It was "that greeting card disbursements from the Federation to the State Affiliates be placed upon the same accounting year as that employed by the Federation for other purposes (January 1 - December 31), and that this change be instituted this year" (emphasis added). The practice had been to pay affiliates their share in time to allow them to send delegates to the national convention and to get started with their state legislative programs. Under the new arrangement, the affiliates would be given a check at the Santa Fe convention for the period July through December, 1958. Quoting again from the tenBroek letter: "In these accounting matters, we must largely be governed by the accounting experts in order to maintain satisfactory records for purposes of government inspection." In the "Urgent Bulletin," Walter McDonald and the Free Press Association present a rather different set of reasons for the change of the accounting period. The introduction to the correspondence to be presented calls attention to this sentence from the McDonald letter: "In his letter to the state affiliates, Dr. tenBroek has reached back for a recommendation from the ... auditors ... in order to avoid the admission that you do not have (the affiliates') money to deliver to them for the reason that you have spent it." The introduction to the "Urgent Bulletin" also points out that: "The fact that even now the President can only estimate the amount of greeting card money available from sales during the last half of 1958 lends even greater credibility to Mr. McDonald's statements." Due to lack of time and consequent limited circulation, most convention delegates went to Santa Fe uninformed of the contents of this bulletin. The major elements of the bulletin are a letter from Kenneth Jernigan to Walter McDonald and a reply from McDonald to Jernigan. Both make fascinating reading, particularly the persuasive writing style of Walter McDonald. When considered with the politics of the moment, the impact that this bulletin should have had if it had not been for the element of time remains a matter of intriguing speculation. Much had already been said; much more would be said. But would it have been said so well? ** Urgent Bulletin from the Federation Free Press Association Published June 15, 1959 (Note: In addition to the two letters here reprinted in full, the "Urgent Bulletin" includes an unsigned introductory letter addressed to "Dear Fellow Federationists," setting out the reasons for the Bulletin, together with other relevant correspondence referred to in the introduction to this article.) * From: Kenneth Jernigan To: Walter McDonald June 2, 1959 Dear Walter: In recent weeks I have been receiving an increasing number of letters and carbons from you concerning the work of the Subcommittee on Budget and Finance. The tone of your letters has come to be what one can only describe as condescending and at times arrogant. Recently I wrote to you on a personal friend-to-friend basis, in the hope of reaching some understanding with you. You did not do me the courtesy of responding directly to my letter, but perhaps that is understandable. I now have your letter of May 29, and of June 1. Your letter of May 29 begins with the sentence, "This is in response to your lengthy plea of confession and avoidance directed to the Budget Committee, Dr. tenBroek, George Card and a copy to our source of usefulness, Bernard Gerchen." I would serve no good purpose to begin to trade insults with you. Therefore, let me simply say that my letter was neither a plea nor a confession of avoidance. It was a simple statement of fact, which I hoped would be considered calmly and maturely by the members to whom it was sent. You make much talk in your letter about "unfaithful servants" and other such matters. You also say that the Budget Committee arrived at its figures for travel and administrative costs simply by picking a figure out of the air because we were unable to determine what had been spent for those items during the year. If this is meant personally and is directed at me individually, I can only say that I will stand on my record of work for and devotion to the Federation. As to your statement concerning the Budget Committee last fall, your version simply does not accord to the facts as I remember them. Have you forgotten that John Nagle and I (the majority of the Committee) let you have your way time after time when we conscientiously felt that your views were wrong -- and that we did so in the interest of trying to keep harmony after you indicated that your views must prevail or you would walk out and resign from the Committee? In your letter of June 1, you talk of our contractual obligations with the affiliates. I have been at all of the conventions where these matters have been discussed, and I have no knowledge of any contractual relations which would be violated by the proposal which our auditors make and which I make. You will observe that I have sent a letter from the Budget Committee to Dr. tenBroek giving our vote on this matter. Your vote was recorded as being in opposition. As matters come up between now and Santa Fe, the Committee will vote on them, and the vote will be recorded. This letter and your letters of recent date are a far cry from that warm personal relationship which began in the spring of 1956, continued through the two conventions in San Francisco that summer and did not show any signs of strain until last fall. If you still value that relationship as I hope that you do (and as I most assuredly do), I trust that you will work with me to wipe out the misunderstandings of recent weeks and to re-establish the common bond. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that Walter McDonald and I will not continue on as close personal friends. Should this not be the case, I would consider it the greatest loss which I have suffered during all of the protracted internal difficulties that have beset our Federation. Very truly yours, Kenneth Jernigan, Chairman Subcommittee on Budget and Finance * From: Walter McDonald To: Kenneth Jernigan June 10, 1959 Dear Ken: Your paradoxical communication of bitter resentment and recollected friendship bearing date of June 2 reached me one week ago today. You make it plain that I am to be "persona non grata" on the Budget and Finance Committee and your apparent purpose is to remove my inquiring interference from your despotic control over the Federation's finances. Before bowing out let us set the record straight for the future good of the organization. Your recollection of what transpired at the first meeting of the Budget Committee and your statement that you and John Nagle let me have my way time after time when you conscientiously felt that my views were wrong certainly does not accord with the facts and can only be intended as a self-serving declaration. As a matter of fact, you came to that meeting determined that we should go back to the Executive Committee with a re-statement of the broad authority previously given to the president to handle the affairs and finances of the Federation as he saw fit, and you quoted the language of the Boston Constitutional Amendment many times over in your effort to convince me that we were not called upon to establish a budget, and I might say that John Nagle backed you up to the letter in every statement. We argued the question the entire morning and into the middle of the afternoon, and when I had packed my briefcase and announced to you that I would not be a party to any such stultifying conduct and dereliction of responsibility and actually started out of the door, Mr. Bernard Gerchen came in for the first time and asked the trouble. I first told him that I had nothing more to say and was withdrawing from the Committee. When he repeated his request for an explanation, I told him that you were taking the position that we were not called upon to establish a budget and that you wanted us to adopt a resolution and recommendation to take back to the Executive Committee restating and reaffirming the complete authority previously vested in the President. Mr. Gerchen told you in no uncertain terms that we had to have a budget and reminded you that notwithstanding the fact that the Federation had started the year 1958 with a surplus of approximately $40,000 from 1957, all of that surplus and all the money received in 1958 was spent and that in the middle of the summer it had been necessary for the President to make a temporary loan with which to carry on. It was not until this juncture that you agreed to develop a proposed budget. However, you continued to be most uncooperative in the development of the budget. You were evidently prompted by the same self-serving purpose when you attempted to turn aside as a personal affront my reminder to you that under the old system of accounting we found it impossible to separate out any given expense and that this was particularly true with Travel and General Administrative. That fact forcefully emphasized the absolute necessity of changing our system of accounting and we accordingly called in accountants, Harvey Eder and Company, who worked with us in our efforts to separate out the several categories of expenses and set up a new system of accounting under which we could have kept up with expenditures. We paid them in the neighborhood of $240-$250 for setting up that system of accounting and we took it to the Executive Committee and had it approved. Shortly after the first of the year, I received word for the first time that you and the President and Emil Arndt considered the system burdensome and you sought to have me agree to a complete change in the accounting which would take us back, and has taken us back pretty close to the cracker-barrel method of accounting in use prior to 1959. When we met in Washington the day before the Executive Committee meeting, I again argued earnestly and vigorously against the adoption of your system of accounting, but in the realization that our books had not been posted since the first of the year and that I had not gotten any sort of financial report, I did what I thought was conceding for the sake of harmony. But I now realize that I temporized with principle. Some time after the Washington Executive Committee meeting, I received for the first time from Emil Arndt what you called a Financial Statement for the months of January and February. They were disturbing, but it was not until the April statement reached me that I really became alarmed and commenced writing those letters which proved so annoying to you. I might say that I called Emil Arndt several times (at my own expense, by the way) and my interest appeared to annoy him just as much as it did you, and I never succeeded in getting him to give me any of the information I have repeatedly called for. Your so-called monthly financial statements furnished by Emil Arndt reflected the generous expenditures under your new breakdown, but they are not divided in such a way as to inform the Committee as to the actual use of federation funds. The income statement is even more inadequate and less informative. It is obvious, however, that expenditures at the present rate far exceed anticipated income. This perplexing and obstinate resistance to the inauguration of proper fiscal controls is directly responsible for the financial plight in which the Federation now finds itself. In his letter to the State Affiliates, Dr. tenBroek has reached back for a recommendation from the above named auditors (which I had never heard of before, no matter how sound it is), with respect to the payment to the affiliates of their share of the greeting card funds in order to avoid the admission that you do not have their money to deliver to them for the reason that you have spent it. This action I also vigorously oppose. In view of all that has happened, I am sure that I could not listen to your financial report without making a minority report and thus exposing myself to indictment and expulsion. In conclusion, I confess to the Executive Committee my gross error in resisting the motion requiring financial statements to be furnished to each member of the Executive Committee and I deprecate the moment of weakness which prompted me in the name of peace to give in to you and throw out and discard each and every one of those accounting recommendations referred to by Dr. tenBroek and enumerated in the copy of the letter from Harvey Eder and Company. This letter will serve as explanation for my letter of resignation from the NFB Executive Committee and all other assignments. Very truly yours, Walter R. McDonald, President Georgia Federation of the Blind ***** ** Letter from George Card Dear Editor: In view of the publication in the June Braille Forum of a statement made by me in the early part of the 1960 Miami convention, I believe I am entitled to a word of explanation. That statement was made before it became known that the Administration was planning to punish fifteen loyal state organizations of the blind for no other reason that in each of these, one or two individuals had incurred the enmity of Kenneth Jernigan. At that final Sunday evening holocaust when the suspensions were bulldozed through without anything approaching an adequate debate, I finally saw the light. I realized with a terrible shock that the Administration was willing, for reasons of personal spite, to tear apart the great organization to which I had devoted some of the best years of my life in building. During the following year, Darlene and I spent almost all our savings and wore out a car in a desperate effort, ultimately futile, to prevent the tragicomedy which took place in Kansas City in 1961. ***** ** A Real Challenge to Section 504 By Reese Robrahn Last year when the American Public Transit Association lost in court its lawsuit to have declared illegal the Section 504 regulations issued by the United States Department of Transportation, a spokesman for the Transit Association stated that it would seek relief and remedy in the Congress through legislation. They and other business and industry lobbyists have almost succeeded. First, they inspired a Congressional Budget Office report which was an analysis of the costs of the provision of accessible transportation for handicapped people. The analysis was filled with estimates, guesswork, and statistical manipulations calculated to discourage Congressional support for the implementation and enforcement of the Section 504 regulations issued by the Department of Transportation. One example of this sleight of hand digital juggling is found in the fact that in the computation of per-trip costs for users who are handicapped, the number of trips taken by users with handicaps was compiled from transit systems which are inaccessible or very limited in accessibility. The result is the ballooning of per-trip costs because few handicapped persons could use or rely on such inaccessible transportation systems. No attempt was made to ascertain how many handicapped people would use the systems if they were accessible, and then to compute the costs on that number. Any substantial reduction in the number of trips or any significant reduction in the estimated life of vehicles and equipment obviously skews the resulting cost per trip very dramatically. Handicapped people will use public transportation if it is adequate and reliable. The Public Transit Authority in the city of Seattle, Washington, recently brought its system into compliance with Section 504 in a good way, and within three months the ridership by handicapped persons had exceeded 70 trips per day. Next the American Public Transit Association and its powerful allies launched a heavy campaign via the news media, providing the general public with erroneous information about costs and frequently featuring handicapped individuals who have been convinced that all special-request transportation services will be discontinued as the result of the implementation of the Department of Transportation 504 regulations. Simultaneously, they conducted a very effective lobby of members of Congress, particularly those on committees which handle transportation legislation and appropriations. The culmination of these efforts was the adoption of an amendment to the House Surface Transportation Bill, H.R. 6417, the Cleveland Amendment, which provides for local option as to whether there will be public transportation services for handicapped people in accordance with the Department of Transportation's 504 regulations or other special transportation services. No criteria are set forth in the legislation to assure services comparable to those services provided to the general public. In addition, the amendment limits the amount of Federal funds that must be spent for such special transportation services to 3% of the Federal transportation monies received. And finally, the amendment very effectively nullifies Section 504 in the provision of transportation services because it contains language which states that compliance with this Act shall satisfy all Federal laws prohibiting discrimination against handicapped persons and laws for the removal of architectural barriers in transportation. If this amendment is adopted by the Congress, the American Public Transit Association and its powerful big-business allies will have succeeded in abolishing Section 504 in transportation. And, if they succeed, the floodgates will be open for every category of recipients of Federal financial assistance to have passed legislation exempting them from compliance with Section 504. Recognizing this great danger to the first real civil rights legislation on the Federal level for handicapped people, a counter-campaign has been organized and conducted by an ad hoc task force representing most of the national organizations of handicapped individuals and our advocates. Support of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the AFL-CIO has been enlisted. A staff member of the House Committee on Education and Labor which traditionally has jurisdiction over civil rights legislation for handicapped persons, stated openly to the staff members of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation that it would fight them on the amendment all the way. This statement came after a two-hour discussion of the issue involving representatives of a broad cross-section of organizations of handicapped individuals and staff persons of leading members of the two committees. It is a certainty that House members who support the Cleveland Amendment will push to have it come on the floor of the House sometime after the July recess of Congress. In the meantime, the companion bill in the Senate was passed out of committee without the Cleveland language amendment. However, there was a move to introduce the same amendment on the floor of the Senate by Senator Zorinsky of Nebraska. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and our friends in the Senate worked out some compromise language which was adopted by the Senate on June 25. The Zorinsky Amendment in Senate Bill S. 2720 is a great improvement over the Cleveland Amendment. It raises the minimum percentage of Federal funds required to be expended for accessible transportation for handicapped people to 5%. It sets forth the criteria which must be met in such transportation services so that they will more nearly approach comparability with transportation services provided to the general public. It requires that in urban areas having populations of 50,000 to 750,000, 50% of all newly purchased buses must be accessible, and that in urban areas having populations over 750,000, 100% of all newly purchased buses must be accessible. It requires that plans submitted by localities must be formulated after consulting with handicapped people to be served, and that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, before approving any such plan, must consult with handicapped people to be served by the plan. The Zorinsky language relating to its effect on Section 504 is somewhat of an improvement over the Cleveland language, but it is regarded by many as nullification of Section 504 in transportation services. It is the obligation of every handicapped citizen to let members of Congress who represent us in our nation's lawmaking body know where we stand on this issue. We must do everything within our means as citizens to see to it that Section 504 is not weakened by this legislation. Now is the time for you to take a few minutes of your day to call, write, or send a telegram to your Congressional delegation urging them to oppose the Cleveland Amendment in the House and urging that neither the Cleveland Amendment nor the Zorinsky Amendment be retained in the conference committee's action on this legislation. ***** ** Fair Housing Legislation: Correction and Update By Kathy Megivern An article in the July, 1980 issue of The Braille Forum described the passage of H.R. 5200, the Fair Housing Act Amendments, by the House of Representatives. That article reported that Congressman Caldwell Butler (R., VA) had not offered his amendment to strike the provisions in the bill which extended protection against discrimination to handicapped persons. A review of the Congressional Record for June 11, 1980, indicates that the Butler amendment was in fact proposed. Mr. Butler did this at a time early in the debate when, according to observers in the House gallery, there were fewer than 20 Congressmen on the floor. Mr. Butler was the only person to speak in favor of his amendment. The rationale used to justify this action was that adding the handicapped would result in further "overregulation" by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But even Representative Henry Hyde (R., IL), who agreed with Mr. Butler's fear of regulation, thought that "the greater evil would be to permit handicapped people to be excluded from the number of people that we are seeking to protect and to guarantee access to housing." Also speaking against the Butler amendment were Representatives Robert McClory (R., IL), Parren Mitchell (D., MD), Paul Simon (D., IL), and Robert Drinan (D., MA). The amendment was defeated by a vote of 6 to 9! As reported last month, there is still much work to be done in the Senate if these Fair Housing Amendments are to become law. As we go to press, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled July 22 as the day they will take up S. 506, the Senate version of the bill. If that committee reports the bill favorably, the push will then be on to get S. 506 to the floor for a vote before final adjournment. Senate staff people have reported that their offices have been inundated with mail from realtors in opposition to the bill. Readers of The Braille Forum are encouraged to write their Senators asking them to support this vitally important civil rights legislation. ***** ** Wake Up! It Can Happen If You Let It Happen By Patricia Price In the beautiful, historic, yet ultra-modern city of Boston, Massachusetts, formerly called Shawmut by the Indians, Ralph E. Crump, Chairman of the Board and President of Frigitronics, Inc., graciously and interestingly opened the Fifth Delegate Assembly of the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind of America. ALL's 1980 meeting was held concurrently with the Helen Keller Centennial Congress, June 26-28, at the Sheraton-Boston Hotel. Mr. Crump sketched briefly the vast array of instruments and devices developed by him and his associates, which have been and are ensuring vision restoration through ophthalmic surgery. Dr. Robert J. Winn, Director, Bureau for the Blind and Visually Handicapped, Rehabilitation Services Administration, then set the tone of the entire conference with his thought-provoking and challenging admonition, "Wake up! It can happen if you let it happen." Dr. Winn urged strenuously that ALL representatives, individually and as organizations collectively, examine carefully each minute component of the blueprint for services for the blind in the coming decade. The challenge was further reinforced by ALL Chairperson Dr. Robert T. McLean as he urged that representatives become the designers rather than the draftsmen of the blueprint that will create destinies. "Leadership," he explained, "must have input from both the builder and the user of the product. Leadership must be willing to ferret out the little flaws and re-design the plan. Leadership must come from a mix of the people, i.e., service providers and consumers. Leadership must create a blend of concepts which will demand the broadest support." Recognizing the need for the blindness system to reach decision-makers in industry, Ray Kempf, Vice President of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind and Chairman of the newly organized ALL Committee on Leadership in Employment and Community Service, conducted a highly relevant discussion which candidly addressed specific recommendations and strategies to overcome the obstacles and attain the ultimate goal of employment. Panelists were Michael Zullo, former Manager of the Handicapped Employees Unit of Corporate IBM and present Corporate Program Developer in metropolitan New York for the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, and Ted Brosnan, a Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company employee who recently developed a training program for AT&T employees in the area of handicapped employees, and with Henry Stern, Program Developer for the American Foundation for the Blind, as reactor. Following a presentation entitled "Burnout -- Rehabilitation's Hidden Handicap," by Dr. LeRoy Spaniol, Center for Rehabilitation, Sargeant College, Boston University, and Jenifer Caputo, Human Services Associate, Belmont, Massachusetts, the traditional Assembly "Speak-Out" again brought to the surface numerous concerns which ALL representatives and observers felt regarding visible and intangible actions and trends which should command attention by the ALL Executive Board and committees. A bit of the future which kindled a keen awareness of the exciting technological era in which we are living was manifested by Richard Evensen, Program Analyst, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress, and Aaron Bauch, representative from the Technological Development Unit, American Foundation for the Blind, as they enumerated the variety of new services and devices soon to be available and utilized, which will greatly enhance the living standards of the blind community. At the annual business meeting, seven resolutions were adopted for action within the coming months. Concerns addressed included sheltered workshop employment for blind persons, restrictions against the use of dog guides within member agencies, ophthalmological examinations for diabetic clients, identifiable currency, the Fair Housing Act (S. 506), and public mass transportation for handicapped people. In addition, confirming the position taken earlier in the year by the Board of Directors, the Delegate Assembly directed that ALL become a participating member in planning for the International Year of Disabled Persons. Continuation of ALL's high level of leadership was assured by the unanimous selection of Chairperson Dr. Robert T. McLean, Vice Chairperson Jansen Noyes, Jr., Treasurer Joseph J. Larkin, Secretary Elizabeth M. Lennon, and two new directors, Richard R. Johnstone and E. R. Fullmer. As the final tap of the gavel was sounded, it was evident that delegates were indeed "awake" and giving serious consideration to designing a dynamic blueprint for today and tomorrow. ***** ** "Bottlers Charity and Subsidy Act" Passed by Congress The title of this article is the irreverent, but accurate name given by Congressman Fortney Stark (D., CA) to a piece of legislation which was officially called the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act. The official title of the bill bears no resemblance whatsoever to its content or its effect. This bill, H.R. 3567 and S. 598, has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate by an overwhelming majority. The legislation creates a special exemption from anti-trust laws allowing territorial restrictions to be contained in licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of trademarked soft-drink products. This means that only one licensee within a geographic area will be allowed to distribute each brand-name soda. That eliminates any possibility of competition between different sellers of any one brand such as Coca Cola. The Department of Justice has said that this bill "would unfairly tip the scales in favor of the soft drink industry at the expense of the consuming public." In addition to the adverse impact upon consumers, the legislation will be harmful to many blind vendors who are currently able to purchase certain brand-name soda at lower prices because of competition among suppliers. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill had impressive bipartisan lists of co-sponsors, and those opposing it were few and far between. But those opponents were vocal. In a dissent to the House Judiciary Committee report, Congressman Don Edwards (D. CA), John Conyers (D., MI), and Robert Drinan (D., MA) called the bill "special-interest legislation in its worst form." They went on to write: "It is truly legislation of the industry, by the industry, and for the industry." On the Senate side, Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D., OH), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Anti-Trust and Monopoly, waged a valiant one-man fight against the bill, including procedural efforts that managed to tie it up for three days. But in the end the bill passed 89 to 3. The American Council of the Blind sent a mailgram to President Carter urging that he veto this bill. The legislation is also opposed by the Consumers Union, Consumers Federation of America, and the Federal Trade Commission. ***** ** 1981 Ski for Light International Event The seventh annual Ski for Light International Event will be held in Saratoga Springs, New York, February 8-15, 1981. Ski for Light is a week-long program designed to introduce blind and visually impaired adults to cross-country skiing. In 1981, approximately 115 blind and visually impaired individuals will take part. Nearly two-thirds of these participants will never have experienced cross-country skiing before. All instruction and skiing is done on a one-to-one basis, allowing each participant to proceed at his or her own pace. Each blind and visually impaired participant is assigned an experienced cross-country skier who will act as a sighted instructor/guide for the entire week. In past years, participants have ranged in age from 18 to 67, with a nearly equal number of men and women. Ski for Light seeks to teach cross-country skiing to as many disabled persons as possible. The main emphasis of the program is on learning an activity that a participant can take back to his or her home community to enjoy with blind as well as sighted friends. It is hoped that many more blind and visually impaired persons will take part in Ski for Light events during the coming ski season. If you would like more information or an application, please contact Mrs. Grethe Twiford, Screening Coordinator, P.O. Box 2971, Reston, VA 22091. ***** ** Here and There By Elizabeth M. Lennon From Handicapped American Reports: Election officials in Manchester, Connecticut, who tried to develop a system for voting in braille so that blind persons could have an alternative to absentee voting have concluded that their efforts were a failure. The Connecticut School for the Blind created clear plastic strips printed with braille, to be slid into place over the appropriate lines on voting machines. In addition to the problem that only ballot questions and offices to be voted upon, but not the names of candidates were in braille, some blind groups feared that voting in braille would eventually lead to the right to vote absentee being taken away from them. They also pointed out that many blind people do not read braille. From Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness -- The Partially Sighted Society in England has established a National Mobility Committee to promote the benefits of safe and efficient mobility for partially sighted people and to encourage improvements in the provision of mobility aids and services to this group in the United Kingdom. -- As the result of a Disability Attitudes and Media Project conducted at the University of Southern Maine, two 16 mm. films have been developed to change public attitudes and behavior toward handicapped persons. First Encounters deals with the discomfort that one who is not handicapped often feels on meeting a physically handicapped person for the first time. Visible Barrier examines cultural stereotypes and barriers to accepting physically disabled people in the working world. For further information, contact Stephen Beam, Disabled Information Center, University of Southern Maine, 246 Deering Avenue, Portland, ME 04102. -- The Federal Aviation Administration, which had once considered the long cane a safety hazard on commercial airlines, now proposes a regulation permitting blind persons to keep their canes at their seats if the canes are "flexible" and are secured within reach. The proposed rule will be published allowing 90 days for comment before it goes into effect. Both United Airlines and TWA now offer pamphlets outlining airline policies on carrying major disability groups, as well as advice on how to book flights with a minimum of confusion and a maximum of convenience. Topics covered include wheelchairs, deafness, blindness, special diets, therapeutic oxygen, pregnancies, and aero stretcher service. For copies of the United Airlines pamphlet, "Travel for the Handicapped," write Consumer Affairs Department, United Airlines, P.O. Box 66100, Chicago, IL 60666. The TWA pamphlet, "Consumer Information About Air Travel for the Handicapped," is available from Trans World Airlines ticket agents and reservations desks. A Master's degree program in rehabilitation counseling is now being offered by Mankato State University, according to the Newsletter of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The 18-month program, accredited by the National Council of Rehabilitation Education, offers an opportunity for qualified students to apply for Federal stipends which cover full or partial tuition and fees, and which provide a monthly amount for living expenses. There is a special need in the rehabilitation counseling profession for women, members of racial minority groups, and persons with disabilities. For full information and application forms, write Rehabilitation Counseling Department, Mankato State University, Box 52, Mankato, MN 56001. From St. Dunstan's Review (England): Braille bank statements have been available for many years from some banks upon request, but they have taken so long to produce that the information has been of limited value. Warwick Research Unit for the Blind, in cooperation with Lloyd's Bank, has now developed an automated system for producing statements in contracted braille quickly. Under this new system, the bank supplies the data recorded digitally in print-image format on magnetic tape, which is then put into a computer programmed to convert the print image into braille at Warwick University. The computer is linked to a braille printer, which embosses the statements directly on to manila paper in minutes. At the same time, a line printer produces a copy in ordinary print in the same format as the braille version, to aid the customer's bank in assisting with any questions. The Electronic Industries Foundation has received funding to find and place 300 handicapped persons in electronics industry jobs in several cities. For further information, contact Carol A. Dunlap, Electronic Industries Foundation, 2001 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006, or Richard Carney, Employment and Training Administration, Office of National Programs, Department of Labor, 2000 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210. From the USABA Newsletter: An international meeting on judo was recently held in Holland. Blind people from Israel, Sweden, and Holland discussed judo and did some training in the sport. Blind people in these countries as well as the United States compete in judo against opponents who have normal vision. The delegates expressed a strong desire to organize international competition in judo for blind athletes. -- Charles Buell's book, Physical Education and Recreation for the Visually Handicapped, was recently published in Japan in Japanese. -- Jean Eymere, founder of Blind Outdoor Leisure Development (BOLD), died in September, 1979, at the age of 43. His death resulted from diabetic complications. The ACB of South Carolina will hold its sixth annual convention at the Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston, August 15-17. -- The 1980 convention of the Michigan Association of the Blind will be held September 26-28 at the Holiday Inn in Alpena. -- The American Council of the Blind of New York State will hold its 1980 state convention in Rochester at the Ramada Inn, the weekend of October 17-19. The ACB of South Carolina Newsletter reports that Mr. N.F. Walker, Superintendent of the South Carolina School for the Blind, retired at the end of the 1979-80 school year. This ends a reign of 131 years of the Walker family at the Cedar Spring School. -- The Charleston chapter reports a number of innovative fund-raising activities. They had a car wash assisted by the Boy Scouts, and a book sale which netted $300. Now in the planning stages are a gospel sing and a magic show. From Hoosier Starlight (Indiana): Philips, the Dutch conglomerate has introduced a new record player; which has no needle. Instead of the traditional stylus, it features a tiny laser beam directed on to a poly-vinyl disc. Philips claims it produces a better quality of sound than any other record player on the market. Plans are to retail it beginning in 1980. ''Barriers, the Access Game" is a board game intended to capture the frustrations encountered by people in wheelchairs. Developed for use as an awareness tool in schools around the country, the game gives players an opportunity to travel around six city blocks where they will encounter architectural and transportation barriers of various kinds. The first person to make the circuit successfully is the winner, but doing so requires that the person overcome such problems as curbs without curb cuts, inaccessible buildings, narrow doorways, plush carpeting, and ramps with excessive inclines. The game does not deal with other kinds of disabilities. To learn more about "Barriers," contact Message Management Consultants, P.O. Box 20010, Indianapolis, IN 46220. ***** ** Notice to Subscribers The Braille Forum is available in braille, large-type, and two recorded editions -- flexible disc (8 1/3 rpm), which may be kept by the reader, and cassette tape, which must be returned so that tapes can be re-used. As a bimonthly supplement, the flexible disc edition also includes ALL-O-GRAMS, newsletter of the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind of America. Send subscription requests and address changes to The Braille Forum, 190 Lattimore Road, Rochester, NY 14620. Items intended for publication may be sent in print, braille, or tape to Editor Mary T. Ballard at the above address. Those much-needed and appreciated cash contributions may be sent to James R. Olsen, Treasurer, c/o ACB National Office, 1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 506, Washington, DC 20036. You may wish to remember a relative or friend by sharing in the continuing work of the American Council of the Blind. The National Office has available special printed cards to acknowledge to loved ones contributions made in memory of deceased persons. Anyone wishing to remember the American Council of the Blind in his or her Last Will and Testament may do so by including in the Will a special paragraph for that purpose. If your wishes are complex, you or your attorney may wish to contact the ACB National Office. ###