The Braille Forum Vol. XXI April, 1983 No. 10 Accreditation Without Consumer Input Equals "Taxation Without Representation" Published Monthly by the American Council of the Blind Mary T. Ballard, Editor ***** * National Office: Oral O. Miller 1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 506 Washington, DC 20036 1-800-424-8666 * Editorial Office The Braille Forum: Mary T. Ballard 190 Lattimore Road Rochester, NY 14620 (716) 244-8364 * Contributing Editor Elizabeth Lennon 1315 Greenwood Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007 ** ACB Officers * President: Grant Mack 139 East South Temple, Suite 5000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 * First Vice President: Dr. Otis H. Stephens 2021 Kemper Lane, S.W. Knoxville, TN 37920 * Second Vice President: Dr. Robert T. McLean Box 237 Department Of Mathematical Sciences Loyola University New Orleans, LA 70118 * Secretary: Karen Perzentka 6913 Colony Dr. Madison, WI 53717 * Treasurer: James R. Olsen Summit Bank Bldg., Suite 822 310 4th Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55415 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 Progress in Negotiation to Modify Hawaii Dog Guide Quarantine Restrictions, by Grant Mack Accreditation Without Consumer Input Equals Taxation Without Representation, by Oral Miller 1983 ACB National Convention Makes Sense, by Ruth Bagby Druding News Briefs from the ACB National Office Capitol Capsules, by Scott Marshall Disabled People Need a National Leader, by Collins-Williams News Service Section 504 on the Supreme Court Docket, by Barbara Nelson A Point to Ponder, by Kent Bowers Lawmakers Sponsor Voting Accessibility Legislation, by Scott Marshall High Tech Swap Shop C-SPAN, Cable TV's Washington Service, by Durward K. McDaniel ASCLA's Revision of NLS Standards Letters from Readers Here and There, by Elizabeth M. Lennon Calendar of Events Notice to Subscribers ***** ** Progress in Negotiations to Modify Hawaii Dog Guide Quarantine Restrictions By Grant Mack, President At the national convention of the American Council of the Blind held in Atlanta last summer, a task force was organized to look into the matter of the Hawaii animal quarantine, which effectively restricts the use of dog guides by blind visitors in that state and also precludes Hawaiian dog guide users from bringing their dogs to the mainland. The leadership of this task force was two-pronged. Linda Cote was appointed to head the group from Hawaii, and David Schreibestein was ultimately appointed to head the group from the mainland. This task force has been working very hard and effectively, and it is now my privilege to report the progress that has been achieved thus far. Although the problem has not yet been solved, some significant progress has been made, and it is important that members and friends of the American Council of the Blind be aware of what has been and currently is taking place. Thanks to Mr. Charles Toguchi, a Senator in the Hawaii State Legislature, the following resolution (with only some minor changes) will soon be introduced before that body: WHEREAS, there has never been a reported case of rabies in the more than 313,000 guide dogs trained by the ten training schools in the United States; WHEREAS, in its 73 years of operation, the Hawaii Quarantine Station has never intercepted a single case of rabies; WHEREAS, the principle that guide dogs are allowed to accompany, aid, and guide their blind or visually impaired masters anywhere (including places where pets and other animals are not permitted) is widely accepted and is incorporated into the laws of every state, including Hawaii; WHEREAS, all guide dog training schools instruct their students on proper veterinary care (including vaccination schedules), in addition to proper working habits, control, discipline, grooming, and care and, therefore, guide dogs are substantially better handled, controlled, behaved, and cared for than the average pet; WHEREAS, almost all of the guide dog training schools maintain rigorous records concerning the health and physical condition of the dogs in training, as well as the more than 10,000 dogs now in the possession of graduates in the field; WHEREAS, there are many highly qualified experts in the field of rabies control who believe that allowing guide dogs from the mainland to enter and travel about in Hawaii without being subject to quarantine would not increase the risk of introducing rabies into Hawaii and there is substantial medical/scientific evidence available to support this position; WHEREAS, the current Hawaii quarantine regulations as they apply to guide dogs almost prohibit guide dog users as well as groups and organizations of blind and visually impaired persons from visiting, touring, doing business in, and enjoying the aloha of Hawaii; WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind (the largest consumer advocacy organization of blind and visually impaired persons in the United States), the Aloha Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired (its Hawaii state affiliate), the State of Hawaii Commission on the Handicapped, and all guide dog training schools in the United States believe that Hawaii should revise its animal quarantine regulations in order to allow guide dogs from the mainland to enter and travel about in Hawaii without being subject to quarantine; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hawaii State Legislature hereby calls upon the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture to re-evaluate its current animal quarantine regulations as they apply to guide dogs, in order to consider revising its regulations, so guide dogs from the mainland can enter and travel about in Hawaii without being subject to quarantine. Many letters of support from people in Hawaii and the mainland have been gathered in preparation for the hearing which hopefully will soon be held. Typical of these letters are those from Dr. Robert L. Stear, Manager, Veterinary Services, Norden Laboratories, Inc., and Mr. Benny Larsen, Executive Director of Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc. Dr. Stear in part says: "We, too, are interested in your accomplishing the purpose of ensuring the Seeing Eye dog's acceptance into the island of Hawaii as it accompanies its master. I believe there is sufficient information available today to substantiate your contention that Seeing Eye dogs deserve to be given special consideration." Mr. Larsen reflects the attitude of all of the dog guide schools from the mainland. His letter of support in part states: "Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc., supports the American Council of the Blind in asking for a review and re-evaluation of the current animal quarantine regulations. It would seem that reasonable restrictions and regulations could be adopted which would both protect. Hawaii's indigenous animal population and allow blind persons using guide dogs to travel more freely." We have faith in the good judgment of the people in Hawaii and feel confident that they will look at this problem with open and realistic minds. We look forward to the time when dog guides and their masters will become frequent visitors to that beautiful island paradise. We also extend hope to the Hawaiian dog guide users that in the future they will be able to visit the mainland and have their dog guides with them. Thanks to the Aloha Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired and to Guide Dog Users, Inc., who have worked so effectively and so harmoniously on this project. It appears that some positive steps are being taken to solve this long-standing problem. ***** ** Accreditation without Consumer Input Equals Taxation without Representation By Oral O. Miller National Representative If you think the subject of accreditation of schools and agencies providing services to the blind has evoked vigorous discussion to date, try to imagine the amount of confusion that would be injected if an accrediting organization with little or no prior experience with the blind were to come along and start offering quick and easy accreditation to schools and agencies serving the blind! Well, something like that is about to happen, and if it takes place, it will surely result in a decrease in the quality of services available to the blind. Although one organization of the blind has chosen for political reasons to condemn the only accrediting organization which has the specialized competence to accredit schools and agencies providing services to the blind, much of the progress that has been made in recent years is attributable to compliance with the standards of that organization, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). Further, one of the main reasons for the quality of these standards has been the considered input of knowledgeable service consumers. The American Council of the Blind has never insisted that the present accreditation system is perfect, and over the years ACB representatives have communicated their concerns to NAC officials, who have listened and responded favorably. For example, during the 1982 NAC membership meeting, an ACB spokesman strongly recommended changes in NAC reimbursement procedures so as to increase consumer involvement in the accreditation process, and the NAC professional staff is now looking seriously into ways of implementing those suggestions. But what about the "Johnny­come-lately" in the blindness accreditation field? Since the 1960's, the premise has been accepted that agencies and schools for the blind should have their own specialized accreditation process; that the entire agency or school versus individual departments or programs should be examined during that process; and that blind and visually impaired people should participate significantly in standard-setting and accreditation activities. Accordingly, in 1973 NAC reached an accord with the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF), providing, in pertinent part, that: "NAC and CARF should maintain a cooperative and beneficial working relationship. The intent of this cooperation is three­fold: (1) to enhance understanding between the organizations; (2) to facilitate improvements in the system of both organizations; and (3) to assure that in their operations, the organizations do not become duplicative or competitive." The accord was effective until recently because each accrediting organization routinely acknowledged the uniquely different origins, constituencies, and capacities of the other. A few years ago, a multi-purpose agency for the blind was re-accredited by NAC for less than the maximum period. The agency subsequently stated its intention to apply for CARF accreditation rather than meet the rigorous requests of the Commission on Accreditation of the National Accreditation Council. NAC representatives discussed the situation with CARF representatives during early 1982, but the CARF representatives said they were uneasy about refusing to consider an application for accreditation from any agency. CARF was really saying that it had decided to move away from the 1973 accord and to evaluate for the first time programs within an agency whose primary purpose is to serve blind and visually impaired people. By letter dated November 29, 1982, to Mr. John D. Kemp, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CARF, I, as the National Representative of the American Council of the Blind, expressed our position as follows: Dear Mr. Kemp: The American Council of the Blind, the largest organization of blind and visually impaired people in the United States, has long supported the concept of standards and accreditation in the field of services to the blind and other disabled persons. Members and leaders of the American Council of the Blind have been associated with the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) since its inception, and as a consumer organization we have worked closely with NAC in the development of specific standards designed to meet the specialized needs of blind and visually impaired persons. We commend the work of the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities and believe strongly that both blind and other disabled people are best served if both accrediting bodies work in a complementary fashion, thereby strengthening the accreditation movement. We are gravely concerned that the accreditation movement will be diluted if agencies which serve primarily blind and visually impaired persons are permitted to seek accredited status through CARF rather than NAC. The reverse is also true, and NAC's Commission on Accreditation has in the past refused to accredit agencies whose primary function was not to serve blind and visually impaired persons. With respect to such agencies, i.e., agencies which serve a cross-disability clientele and whose primary function is not to serve blind and visually impaired persons, CARF accreditation would seem to be entirely proper. We must not allow a situation to develop whereby an agency serving blind and visually impaired persons can, in effect, choose from which accrediting body it desires to seek accreditation. To permit such a choice cheapens the entire accreditation movement and fosters needless friction and competition between CARF and NAC. The American Council of the Blind further believes that NAC is uniquely qualified by experience and expertise to develop specialized standards and to administer an accreditation system for agencies serving blind and visually impaired persons. Programmatic standards developed by NAC, in consultation with consumer organizations such as the American Council of the Blind, in such areas as mobility, skills of daily living, and production of reading materials, are by necessity unique to agencies serving blind and visually impaired persons. The NAC standards treat these areas with a high degree of specificity because of the complexities in delivering these specialized services. We believe that our constituency is best served by the NAC standards, and that services to blind and visually impaired persons would suffer if agencies were merely required to meet the more generalized CARF standards in these areas. For these reasons, we urge you and the CARF Board to decline any applications from agencies whose primary function is to serve blind and visually impaired people. Similarly, we urge the NAC Commission on Accreditation to continue its present policy of refusing to accredit agencies who serve blind and visually impaired persons only as an incidental rather than a primary function. Subsequent events may be gleaned from my letter of February 7, 1983, to Mr. Kemp of CARF, as follows: Dear Mr. Kemp: On November 29, 1982, I wrote to you urging that the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) resist the temptation to accredit agencies or service programs relating primarily to blind people. ... It is an understatement to say that I was disappointed when I learned shortly after your last board meeting that CARF had decided to begin accepting applications for accreditation from agencies serving blind people primarily. Frankly, I was not aware that a miracle of sufficient magnitude had taken place to enable CARF's standards to cover services for the blind. Accordingly, I am asking you to send me at your early convenience a copy of all CARF standards that may be applied to services for the blind, plus a set of your operating procedures concerning the accreditation process. Further, please send me a copy of the CARF procedures concerning the manner in which significant and responsible consumer input is requested, received and implemented in the adoption or modification of standards. Further, inasmuch as your standards and/or procedures would presumably involve communication with blind people, I shall appreciate receiving the above-mentioned material in braille or recorded form. If my request for this material in these forms surprises you, you have just learned one of your first lessons about the adoption and application of standards regarding services to handicapped people, who are quite capable of speaking and making decisions for themselves. If you cannot provide me with the requested information, please let me know at your early convenience so I can arrange to meet with you to discuss further our concern over the recent decision of the CARF Board of Directors. To date, I have not received the standards and procedures requested in my letter, although I have received a call from the Executive Director of CARF indicating that the requested items will be sold to us as soon as a decision is made as to how they can be put into braille or recorded form. This is the organization that holds itself out as having the competence to accredit schools and agencies serving the blind and visually impaired? ***** ** 1983 ACB National Convention Makes Sense By Ruth Bagby Druding Yes, attending the national convention of the American Council of the Blind July 2-9), 1983) in Phoenix, Arizona, does make sense. In fact, it should appeal to all five of them! Recent issues of The Braille Forum have alluded to what you might SEE around Arizona; your sense of TASTE has been promised a treat; the March issue cautioned your sense of FEELING with regard to the cactus. Your sense of SMELL will be stimulated by the odor of mesquite wood which will be used to cook your steaks at the western night cookout. You may be fortunate, too, to smell the desert after a summer shower. Your sense of HEARING will be aroused by speakers selected to make this convention a most memorable one, as you hear about new ideas, innovations, inventions, and programs from throughout the United States and from abroad. You will be treated to the sound of roving mariachis as they play and sing Mexican music during the Fiesta Night, planned for Sunday, July 3, to welcome conventioneers to Phoenix. Other singing groups are scheduled to entertain during the week, including a special concert at the Wednesday night Awards and Charter Gala by the Phoenix version of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You will also be pleased to know that a dance is planned following the Friday night annual banquet, featuring a versatile country-western band which also plays many songs of the '50s. And finally, there is also the annual auction/dance hosted by the Randolph­Sheppard Vendors of America. Plans are rapidly progressing to make the 1983 ACB convention a great one. By now, all state and national special-interest affiliates should have submitted their paid membership lists to the ACB National Office to ensure a vote at the convention. Speakers are being contacted at this time, and tentative program schedules are becoming more firm each day. Main topics of discussion at the convention will include, but are not limited to, "Why Accreditation?" and "The Future of the NIB Workshops," as well as innovations in library services, education, aids and equipment, and many other areas. Please make a note of the new telephone number for the 1983 ACB Convention Host Committee: (602) 273-1983. Remember those last four digits; that's the year of our convention. ATTENTION, ALL BRAILLE USERS: Bring your slate and stylus to the convention. The Braille Revival League is planning a braille "penmanship" contest. Recognition will be given to the winners. To contact the 1983 Convention Host Committee: Write 3124 E. Roosevelt, Suite 2, Phoenix, AZ 85008; call (602) 273-1983. To make your own reservations with the Phoenix Hilton hotel: write Phoenix Hilton, Adams and Central, Phoenix, AZ 85002; telephone (602) 257-1525. Hotel room rates: Singles, $30; doubles, $34; triples, $38; quads, $42. Yes, it does make sense to attend the ACB national convention - common sense. So let us hear from you so that we can plan to see you here and know that you want to be in touch with old friends and meet new ones who share your tastes. We want you to come and LOOK INTO THE SUN with us in July. Please plan to register early. ***** ** News Briefs from the ACB National Office A summary of activities was prepared recently by the National Office staff of the American Council of the Blind, covering the period November 1, 1982, through January 31, 1983. Although space permits publishing only highlights from that report, these highlights testify eloquently to the pace and range of activities of the ACB National Office staff. Activities of Oral O. Miller, National Representative: During the period covered by this report, I, as National Representative, originated approximately 110 pieces of correspondence covering the full range of ACB programs and services. By way of illustration, specific topics included: leadership training seminars, staff and committee members attending meetings, national convention program speakers, ACB opposition to CARF accreditation of agencies serving the blind (see article elsewhere in this issue), recommendation of ACB members to serve on committees and boards, fund-raising statutes, availability of aids and services for the blind, possible speakers for affiliate conventions, membership development, the 1983 national legislative workshop, contract for preparation of a new series of public service announcements, and negotiations for additional floor space for the ACB National Office. Also, I represented the American Council of the Blind at various board and committee meetings; participated in planning sessions regarding the Legislative Action Project; conferred at length with the ACB national membership chairman, Ms. Vera McClain, during her recent trip to the National Office; assisted a Texas braille group in brailling automatic teller machines, elevators, shopping malls, etc.; and participated monthly in recorded telephone interviews on ACB Reports for use in radio reading service broadcasts. Activities of Scott Marshall, Director of Governmental Affairs: During the period covered by this report, I attended the following out-of-town meetings: National Accreditation Council annual meetings; Delaware Council of the Blind annual convention; Southwestern Leadership Training Seminar; NAC Commission on Accreditation meeting; and Legislative Action Project meetings. Approximately ten "Washington Connection" scripts were researched and aired, on topics ranging from Section 504 to the Helen Keller bill and an F.Y. 1984 budget update. Approximately 50 hours were spent in liaison activities with other organizations, including the Affiliated Leadership League and the American Foundation for the Blind. Biweekly meetings were attended at which legislative information was exchanged with other Washington, D.C., area representatives of several organizations dealing with blindness. Capitol Hill activity was brisk during December as the 97th Congress drew to a close. Both oral and written communication was directed to the Hill on a variety of topics: the Helen Keller Center bill, the Telecommunications Act for the disabled, Social Security appeal rights, the Internal Revenue Service taxpayer service issue, and legislation relating to the operation of vending machines along the Federal interstate highway system by state Randolph-Sheppard licensing agencies. Since January 1, I have worked extensively on the Voting Rights for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (see article elsewhere in this issue), as well as tactile identification of U.S. currency. Several meetings have been held with Congressional staff and Bureau of Engraving and Printing personnel concerning the identification of U.S. currency by tactile or other means. This is the first time the Bureau has meaningfully sat down with a consumer organization to discuss this issue, which is far more complex than one would initially imagine. Activities of Barbara Nelson, Staff Attorney: During the three months covered by this report, I have submitted written briefs, comments, and reports on a wide range of concerns to blind and visually impaired persons, including proposed changes to P.L. 94-142 regulations, Federal Communications Commission rulemaking affecting radio reading services, U.S. Postal Service proposed regulations regarding accessibility of postal services to handicapped people, and Social Security policy regarding the administrative appeals process. Meetings attended included the Bay State Council of the Blind (Massachusetts) state convention, American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities press conference regarding Reagan Administration policies toward the handicapped, National Council of the Handicapped, Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America Board meeting, Save Our Security Coalition, and the Voter Accessibility Coalition. Other legal advocacy activities included responding to numerous requests for legal assistance - 48 in November, 26 in December, 32 in January. Most requests were for information regarding Social Security benefits. Next most frequent were problems with employment discrimination. The award for the most unusual legal problem goes to a woman who called excitedly because the welfare department had taken her children and the SPCA had taken her dogs. How many dogs did she have? Forty-eight! By the time this issue of The Braille Forum reaches the readers, the 1983 American Council of the Blind National Legislative Workshop will be little more than a month away. This year's workshop is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., beginning on Wednesday, May 11, and ending on Friday, May 13. Although efforts will again be made to match some workshop participants with Representatives and Senators who serve on committees of particular importance to the handicapped, all ACB state and regional affiliates are being invited to send representatives to the workshop. This year's workshop will be an especially important one because, although issues change quickly from week to week, it is clear that the nature of the Federal rehabilitation system is to be one of the critical issues to be determined in this session of Congress. With regard to additional space for the ACB National Office (as approved by the ACB Board at its January 1983 meeting), plans are moving ahead for expansion of the office into an adjoining suite (Suite 504). The addition will increase floor space by approximately 700 square feet. While this will not give the National Office staff the highly desirable space it would have had in an even larger suite in the same building, it will, hopefully, allow space for the initiation of several programs, such as greater use of the Kurzweil Reading Machine by ACB members in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. ***** ** Capitol Capsules By Scott Marshall Director of Governmental Affairs Political "Hold" on Section 504 Regulations - Rumors continue to abound regarding publication of the long-awaited Section 504 interagency guidelines. In late February, sources indicated that the guidelines would be published after March 15 and that regional hearings were being scheduled in major cities around the country. All of this changed, however, in early March. Mysteriously, word surfaced that the anticipated release of the proposed guidelines was again to be held in abeyance. The reason for this "hold" status can only be surmised as this time. The reason is thought to involve issuance by the Department of Health and Human Services of its proposed regulations regarding hospitals' liability for failure to treat handicapped infants. Under current regulations, a recipient of Federal funds must, generally speaking, make all of its programs accessible to handicapped persons, whether or not each program or activity receives Federal financial support. A program or activity is covered under Section 504 if it merely benefits from Federal financial assistance. A hospital may be liable under Section 504 if a staff physician fails to treat a handicapped infant, even if the physician's salary is not financed with Federal dollars. It is expected that the new Section 504 guidelines would require a direct link or relationship between the activity or program in question and the Federal funding in order to predicate coverage under Section 504. Accordingly, if this analysis is correct, a hospital could be free from liability under Section 504 resulting from its failure to treat a handicapped infant, since, in most instances, the Federal funding would not be used to pay the salaries of medical personnel. One set of regulations would, in effect, thwart the intended purpose of the other. SSI Recipients to Receive July Increase - The House Ways and Means Committee in early March approved most of the $165 billion Social Security rescue plan proposed by the National Commission on Social Security Reform. In doing so, the committee voted to give a $20 increase for individual SSI recipients ($30 for couples) beginning this July, instead of the customary cost-of-living adjustment, which will be delayed until January 1984. SSDI recipients would not receive such a payment and would not receive a cost-of-living adjustment this July. The committee also adopted a prospective reimbursement plan which pays to hospitals a flat amount for specified services. Current law permits reimbursement to hospitals at actual cost. Reimbursement rates would vary among nine geographic regions. The system, if Congress approves, would be phased in over a three-year period. The committee also indicated that a similar reimbursement plan for physicians' services should be studied. OMB Temporarily Pulls Back Advocacy Regulations - On January 24, 1983, the Office of Management and Budget released proposed regulations which would seriously affect the ability of a non­profit organization to engage in public advocacy activities if it receives Federal funds. Such organizations would be able to engage in political activity only if non-Federal money was used; and provided, further, that Federal money was not used directly or indirectly for such activity. Thus, if an organization used a typewriter in connection with political activity (a term broadly defined in the proposed regulations), and the typewriter was paid for in whole or in part with Federal funds, the organization would lose all of its Federal funding - not merely the portion of Federal funding allocable to the political activity. Although these proposed regulations would not affect the American Council of the Blind, which does not receive any Federal funds, other groups such as the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (ACCD) and many of its member organizations would be very seriously impacted by these proposed regulations. In addition, independent living centers often engage in the kind of activity proscribed by the proposed regulations. In response to an outcry from many groups representing both conservative and liberal interests, OMB announced on February 25 that it would withdraw its proposed advocacy regulations (known as Circular A122) and would release a revised proposal. At this writing (March 7), the revised proposal has not yet appeared in the Federal Register. Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization - Hearings have already begun concerning reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Although it is likely that the Act will be reauthorized with changes only in the amount of money authorized for particular programs, substantive changes to the law have not been ruled out. Accordingly, re-evaluation of the worth of currently authorized programs and improvements to the Act is well under way. For example, the Client Assistance Program (CAP), which assists rehabilitation clients in the resolution of problems concerning vocational rehabilitation programs will terminate next year unless re-authorized by Congress. The Administration has testified that it is not in favor of re-authorizing CAP, since, according to Administration officials, the program is no longer needed and breeds an adversarial relationship between rehabilitation clients and their counselors. Congress needs to hear from you about such questions as: Should CAP be re-authorized? Should CAP be extended nationwide? Should all disability groups benefit from CAP assistance? Should the CAP program be administered separately from the state vocational rehabilitation agency? And, finally, should CAP personnel be restricted to VR problems or should such assistance be available in other situations where an advocate's assistance may be needed, e.g., employment discrimination cases? Other questions relate to whether the civil rights sections of the Rehabilitation Act (notably Sections 504 and 503) should be strengthened and/ or clarified, particularly in light of current case law developments (see article elsewhere in this issue). Once again, substantive changes to the Rehabilitation Act may not be politically possible or prudent at this time. However, Congress needs to hear from disabled people concerning these issues so that the groundwork for change can be laid and the gains al­ready achieved can be protected. ***** ** Disabled People Need a National Leader By Collins-Williams News Service In every major movement, there is a leader who can persuade people to follow either him or her. Examples of such leadership in the United States in the past twenty years are John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Caesar Chavez, and Eleanor Smeal. They had ideas that appealed to a broad spectrum of people of all ages, races, sexes, nationalities, classes. They knew how to motivate. They could associate with the powerful and the influential because they were powerful and influential. Their words were listened to by educators, politicians, church leaders, economists, and countless more, because they had national support behind them. For more than a decade, we have heard disabled people talk about our movement. We have heard them say how our movement parallels the civil rights movement of the 1960s. We have even heard them say how the 1980s will be the decade of disabled people, just as the decade of the '60s was for Black Americans and as the '70s was for women. We believe, however, that this dream will not become a reality until disabled people have a leader who can unite the major forces of national consciousness and support, the national media, and the Federal Government behind our efforts to become full citizens. Unfortunately, at this time there is not a disabled leader in Washington, D. C. of sufficient influence to make our movement a national one. For disabled people to have a significant national movement with impact, they must do the following: 1) Find a person who is disabled to be our leader. 2) Qualifications that this leader must possess are vision, strength, and statesmanship; knowledge of disability issues and of Capitol Hill; the ability to form and sustain coalitions; the ability to work on a national level with politicians, the media, and other people of influence; and the ability to communicate persuasively the inhuman social, economic, employment, and educational conditions of millions of disabled people today. We believe there are disabled people who fit these qualifications and feel that organizations representing disabled people must come to maturity and find this leader. Having found this leader, the following steps must be taken and recognized by disabled people: 1) Supporters must rid themselves of pettiness and develop a national agenda. 2) Supporters must recognize that a national leader may often have to make political decisions with which they do not agree, but which are necessary. 3) Supporters must understand that a national leader will be in the limelight and receive more publicity than they themselves. 4) Supporters must be willing to raise money locally to achieve national objectives. Traditionally, the cry has been that organizations of disabled people do not have the money to support national programs, and too many groups have refused to raise money for national objectives. This approach hurts them and a national program. 5) Lastly, we believe that a major weakness in the disabled movement is that there are too many national offices of disabled people representing individual disability interests. They siphon off valuable resources and money that should be used by a national office. It will require strength, intelligence, and the desire to surrender personal fiefdoms to eliminate many of these offices. But they must be eliminated and one strong national leader and organizations must emerge. We recognize these are not easy tasks. They are necessary, however, if disabled people want to move forward; if they want to speak with one voice; if we want others to hear us and to work with us; if we want to rid ourselves of the image of second­class citizenship and as people who are always being funded by others. A national leader would help make these changes. A national leader is needed now! (John Collins III and John Williams recently started a news service that will offer a maximum of six stories monthly on disability and elderly issues affecting these populations. Collins has a rare calcium disease; Williams stutters. Together, they have been writing about disability for 20 years.) ***** ** Section 504 on the Supreme Court Docket By Barbara Nelson Staff Attorney Bad news about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 may come from the United States Supreme Court next year. The Court has decided to review the decision in the case of Le Strange versus Consolidated Rail Corp. (see The Braille Forum, November 1982). The Le Strange decision interpreted Section 504 to apply to the employment practices of organizations which receive Federal funds, even if the primary purpose of the funds was not to provide employment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears to be ready to adopt a new limitation on Section 504. It seems likely that the Court will begin to require handicapped persons who wish to bring a Section 504 complaint to prove that there is some connection or "nexus" between the Federal funds received and the discrimination suffered. This could mean that the entire operation of an organization which receives some Federal funding would not be covered by Section 5 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504, then, could be prohibited only in that part of the organization which receives Federal funds. For example, a blind college student who wishes to claim that her college violated Section 504 because it refused to admit her to a biology course would have to prove not only that her college received Federal funds, but also that the biology department received Federal funds — or even, perhaps, that she was an "intended beneficiary" of the Federal assistance. In other news, the Supreme Court decided the case of Federal Communications Commission versus Gottfried. The case was brought by a group of hearing impaired individuals who petitioned the FCC to deny the renewal of the license of a public television station in Los Angeles which did not provide "closed captioned" programming for the hearing impaired, claiming that the station violated Section 504. The Supreme Court decided that the FCC licensing procedure was not the appropriate mechanism to enforce Section 504. The Court reasoned, first, that the responsibility for enforcing Section 504 as it applies to recipients of Federal funds lies with the agency that provides the money rather than with the Federal Communications Commission. "If a licensee should be found guilty of violating the Rehabilitation Act, or indeed of violating any other Federal statute, the Commission would certainly be obligated to consider the possible relevance of such a violation in determining whether or not to renew the law­breaker's license. But in the absence of a direction in the Rehabilitation Act itself, and without any expression of such intent in the legislative history, we are unwilling to assume that Congress has instructed the Federal Communications Commission to take original jurisdiction over the processing of charges that its regulatees have violated the Act." The Court went on to say that although the FCC is charged in the Communication Act with the responsibility to make radio and TV service available "to all the people of the United States," and that television stations have some obligation to attempt to expand service to hearing impaired people, in the absence of specific FCC rules requiring stations to provide "closed captioned" programs, the license renewal application should not be denied. In a dissenting opinion, Justices Brennan and Marshall criticized the view that the FCC should not consider Section 504 in license renewal proceedings, stating: "The objectives of Congress would be ill served if each administrative agency were permitted to disregard any statute that it is not specifically authorized to enforce. 'No agency entrusted with determination of public convenience and necessity is an island.'" This decision exemplifies the problem handicapped people have had with the Court. The majority view that it is unfair to deny a station's license renewal because it has failed to provide "closed captioned" programs, when the FCC had never told the station that this is required, is reasonable. The Court, however, could have stopped there and would not have needed to discuss Section 504 at all. But instead of issuing such a narrow decision, the Court takes this opportunity to go on to excuse the FCC from taking account of Section 504 when it develops policy - a step that was not necessary. Beyond the actual decision, the Court has again sent a message to courts and to Federal agencies: This Court is not a champion of civil rights for handicapped people. ***** ** A Point to Ponder By Kent Bowers, Treasurer Association of Radio Reading Services I should like to respond to John Young's article, "A Positive Approach to Radio Reading Service Protection," The Braille Forum, March 1983. I have met and spoken with Mr. Young at several of the ARRS conferences, and I realize that his commitment to radio reading services is sincere, indeed. I have no doubt that as long as he is there, the visually impaired in Tampa will have access to a radio reading service. However, it is a well-recognized fact that, as industries go, the broadcasting business is a very volatile one in which formats and personnel can change quickly. New management personnel could have vastly different ideas about the merit of carrying a radio reading service. And if sub­carriers are completely deregulated with no reservation, what is to keep the new manager from simply dumping the RRS in order to use that sub­carrier for some lucrative new venture? No rule or regulation would keep the manager from taking such an action, and we are all aware of the enormous power of money to influence such a decision. That is why we in the Association of Radio Reading Services continue to insist on the reservation of 67 kHz for public service use. We must have something firmer to stand on than just the commitment of managers of National Public Radio stations. To maintain support from agencies and private sources, we must have legal, written, and enforceable access to a subcarrier. NPR's proposal to deregulate contains no such provision, and that hypothetical new station manager could take the radio reading service right off the air. ***** ** Lawmakers Sponsor Voting Accessibility Legislation By Scott Marshall Director of Governmental Affairs The week of January 31, 1983, was a busy one on Capitol Hill. The President's budget was sent to Congress; hearings were held concerning financing of the Social Security system; and on February 3, the Equal Access to Voting Rights Act was introduced in both chambers on February 3. This legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress as the Voting Rights for the Handicapped and Elderly Act, began its journey toward passage in the 98th Congress with astonishing momentum. Thanks to the groundwork laid last Congress and the endorsement of over 40 national and community organizations, the Equal Access to Voting Rights Act, principally sponsored by Senator David Durenberger in the Senate and Representative Hamilton Fish and Representative Doug Walgren in the House, garnered over 100 co-sponsors even before it was introduced. The list of co-sponsors continues to grow and numbers over 160 at this writing (March 7). As Braille Forum readers know, this legislation has had a long history. In August of 1981, the American Council of the Blind met with a small number of other disability rights organizations to discuss the problem of voting accessibility and to re-draft H.R. 222, the voting rights legislation then pending in the 97th Congress. After much discussion and work, H.R. 6036 and S. 2334 were introduced late in the 97th Congress. The coalition continued to grow, but it became apparent that hearings could not be scheduled in the 97th Congress because of the press of other legislative business. At the same time, efforts were well under way to amend the Voting Rights Extension Act to permit disabled persons or those unable to read to choose their own assistants in the voting booth. Although ACB supported this amendment, to the Voting Rights Extension Act, it still maintained that a need existed for broader, more comprehensive legislation. The newly revised bill provides that all Federal registration and polling sites must be accessible by wheelchair ramp or otherwise to mobility impaired persons; provides for use of paper ballots for those preferring this method of voting; provides for large­print instructions for severely visually or hearing impaired persons; and further ensures that the application and filing requirements for absentee ballots will not be unduly burdensome to handicapped or elderly voters. The voting assistance provision, which was passed as part of the Voting Rights Extension Act, will become law in January 1984, in time for the 1984 Presidential election. You are urged to write to your Senators and Representatives requesting their co-sponsorship of this legislation and asking their assistance during forthcoming hearings. The Equal Access to Voting Rights Act is known as H.R. 1250 in the House and S. 444 in the Senate. You may wish to mention in your letter or telephone call that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a consortium of over 160 civil rights organizations (of which the American Council of the Blind is a proud member), has included this legislation on its 98th Congress legislative agenda and is working actively with the American Council toward ultimate passage. ACB is pleased to be an active participant in the civil rights community, and it believes that its interest in and involvement with LCCR activities has and will continue to be repaid as other civil rights groups become even more aware of disability-related civil rights issues. Congressional staff have also reported that the National Federation of the Blind supported the Equal Access to Voting Rights Act during its "March on Washington" in early February. Many thanks to those who responded to the voting needs survey questionnaire which appeared in The Braille Forum last fall. Your experiences with respect to voting accessibility are being tabulated and will be used to demonstrate to Congressional staff some of the problems which blind and visually impaired people face in exercising the franchise. ** High Tech Swap Shop A recent letter from Bill Jenkins of Oklahoma City contains a very positive, constructive idea. The letter reads in part as follows: Most of us have commented at one time or another on the prohibitive cost of high technology aids and devices for the blind and visually impaired. As a potential consumer of such high technology, I believe that helping to reduce these costs is one service which the American Council of the Blind should be attempting to provide its members. A perfect opportunity for a first step in this direction would be to publish a high technology "swap" column from time to time in The Braille Forum. I feel certain that there must be many pieces of such high technology equipment which, for whatever reason, are hidden away in closets or collecting dust on a shield. These devices should be put into the hands of people who will use them. Such a column should be limited, I feel, to high technology items only. That is, ordinary items readily available to the general public (e.g., old-time radio recordings, home entertainment type tape recorders, and the like) should not be accepted. I feel this is a service which ACB can and should provide, since the "trade" newsletters, for good reason, do not do so. The Braille Forum is pleased to publish "High Tech Swap Shop" on a trial basis. Acceptance or rejection of items to be included is to be at the discretion of the editor. For starters: WANTED TO PURCHASE - A used Optacon in good condition. Write Debee Norling, P.O. Box 5702, Berkeley, CA 94705; or call (415) 644-1855. ***** ** C-SPAN, Cable TV's Washington Service By Durward K. McDaniel The cable industry has formed C-SPAN, a non-profit, cooperative, public affairs service organization which telecasts by satellite through cable TV channels 24 hours a day. Its programming includes gavel-to-gavel coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives, some Government agencies, and many other Washington events related to the Government. Featured speakers, including members of Congress, are interviewed, and often the audience can call in to ask questions or to make comments. If you are a cable subscriber and have an interest in Federal legislation and Government affairs, C-SPAN is a very valuable source of information. For example, all of the hearings on Social Security legislation held by the House Committee on Ways and Means in February were telecast by C-SPAN and repeated later for the convenience of cable subscribers. C-SPAN is available to all cable companies, but some of them do not offer it to their subscribers. In that event, you are encouraged to lobby your local cable company to add C-SPAN if you want the opportunity to receive this source of governmental and related information. ***** ** ASCLA's Revision of NLS Standards The Association of Specialized Cooperative Library Agencies, a division of the American Library Association, held its first Advisory Committee session on December 10, 1982, in Chicago, Illinois. This committee is composed of ASCLA staff members, sub­regional librarians, and representatives of both the American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind. Christine M. Cook, of the Mountain State Council of the Blind (West Virginia), participated in the proceedings as ACB's representative. The committee is charged with the none-too-easy task of revising the standards currently defining operations and programs of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress. Topics discussed during the all-day session ranged from a general examination of the philosophy of current standards to recommendations for needed revision of those standards. Although consumer input was solicited by committee members, it was obvious that the primary thrust of discussions centered on concern with administrative and budgetary reforms. Size of collections, resource sharing, formatting of materials, staffing requirements, and other administrative details consumed the major portion of the committee’s time and attention. It became clear that if alterations are to be made in NLS operations and programs which will better meet the needs of consumers rather than professionals, a much greater effort must be put forth by consumers themselves. The NLS system, after all, was established for the use and benefit of the blind and visually handicapped community. Out of these discussions will come a concept paper to be completed in late 1983 - a first draft in March, a second draft in mid-summer, and the final revision of standards by October. ACB members are urged to submit specific recommendations for the improvement of library services as soon as possible to Christine M. Cook, Mountain State Council of the Blind, Route 3, Box 62-E, Martinsburg, WV 25401. Only through such participation can the quality of library services be enhanced and customized to fulfill the specific needs of blind and visually impaired persons. ***** ** Letters from Readers * Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is written in declaration of my full support for the "Washington Connection." I became addicted to this service back in August of 1982 when I identified with the information, which deserves high marks for the quality of its presentation. Scott Marshall succinctly explains legislative procedures in language that can be understood by the average person. I am grateful for the access to this timely and vital information. I work with a producer on a television program and I write a column entitled "Handicaptions," both of which deal in educating and informing the public on matters relative to all handicaps. Continued success with the "Washington Connection." I'll be calling. - Gerri Rasmussen, Rowayton, CT * Dear Editor: I constantly read about the terrific technologic advances handicapped people can use to be so much more ef­ficient and independent. But, the price tags astound me! I could use any one of several new items. However, my agency is not in the position to purchase the equipment, and I certainly would bind my family by setting up payments. Are there any financial assistance plans available to the "unpoor, but not very rich"? I currently support a husband and two children. My salary and my husband's SSDI are a comfortable living, but would not allow for payments on items costing tens of thousands of dollars. I am sure there are others who, though performing adequately, believe they would be more effective and independent using some newly developed equipment, but who believe, as I do, that it is financially out of reach. Are there some new, creative means for financing the new technology? How are the common, educated, rehabilitated, self-supporting handicapped able to latch on to the great new world? Help! I think I am being left behind by an empty billfold. - Wishfully yours, Nancy Johnson, Rehabilitation Teacher, Topeka, KS * Dear Editor: In the January issue of The Braille Forum, there was an article by Fred Krepela called "Reflections," in which he discusses assistance by the sighted public. He feels that because he declined assistance, the sighted public might not offer assistance to other blind people who really need this assistance. I disagree with Mr. Krepela, as I feel it is not the refusal of assistance which is crucial, but how this assistance is declined. There have been occasions when I have declined offers of assistance and have said, very simply, "No, thank you. I can manage without any problem." There is nothing wrong in that kind of response. It is civil and polite. However, there are some blind people who refuse such offers by saying something like, "Don't touch me. I am no cripple. I can get along very well without your pity." This kind of response will definitely create very negative feelings, and the sighted person will think twice, and perhaps even three times, before offering any kind of assistance again. No one likes to be the object of rudeness, whether one is blind or sighted. Some people may not believe that a blind individual can be rude or coarse. However, I have witnessed such incidents, so I know it does happen. Of course, sighted persons can also be rude and coarse, but that is no excuse for the blind person to act in a similar manner. We are all very aware of discrimination against blind people, and I am certain that a large part of this discrimination is our own fault. I won't even speak to a person if I feel he or she will treat me in a rude or uncivil manner. Why should I? There is no need for me to subject myself to that kind of treatment. There is no reason for rudeness, and I refuse to accept it from anyone. - Irwin Lutzky, Brooklyn, NY * Dear Editor: It is with a deep concern for the literacy of children who are blind that I am writing in response to Mr. Eldridge's article ("Literacy Begins with the Slate and Stylus," The Braille Forum, January 1983). I commend Mr. Eldridge for bringing this issue to the attention of readers of The Braille Forum. For many years, I have spoken to teachers about the need for literacy. Mr. Eldridge stated, "Testimony indicates that teachers of the blind (especially those with sight) are given only perfunctory training in braille, THAT only on the braille writer." As a teacher/educator, I must refute this statement. In the course allotted to undergraduates for braille reading and writing, I teach many topics, including: literary and Nemeth braille, the teaching of braille (including methods and materials), assessment of reading materials, braille technology and raised-line diagrams. Still our students at the University of Texas must demonstrate a proficiency in the use of a slate and stylus by the mid­term examination. Graduate students can take advanced braille through independent studies. Mr. Eldridge's complaint may be justified from the experience of those teachers with whom he spoke. However, I wish he had spoken with teacher/educators before making such a broad statement. With the addition of new technology, e.g., Optacon and paperless braillers, it behooves any special educator to continue their education beyond that which can be offered at the undergraduate or master's level. I welcome any inquiries regarding the program at the University of Texas at Austin, and I encourage readers to find out about other university programs in their own region. - Anne L. Corn, Ed. D., Assistant Professor, Education for the Visually Handicapped, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. * To the Editor of The Braille Forum: On my first reading of Fred Krepela's commentary in the January 1983 issue of The Braille Forum, I was confused. I wasn't sure what point he was trying to make. On my subsequent reading of the article, I was extremely offended. I, too, approach this topic from a point of view that bespeaks a certain expertise on my part: I am the non­handicapped wife of a blind man. During our nearly five years of marriage, we have worked together to make my husband one of "those handicapped individuals who consider themselves to be self-sufficient." We consider this to be a point of pride ... Mr. Krepela's thesis appears to be this: that handicapped persons should accept all offers of help, whether it is needed or not, because refusal of such an offer may prevent other handicapped persons from being assisted. My response can be expressed very simply: Why would anyone, handicapped or otherwise, want to accept help he or she didn't want or need? I have witnessed my husband being helped across the street when he didn't want to cross. I have observed well-intentioned individuals assisting my husband when he clearly didn't want or need the assistance. And I have seen how such acts have tended to erode my husband's self-respect. ... Rather than behaving in such a dishonest, bankrupt manner, blind persons might be better advised to live their lives as they choose, accepting help when they need it and feeling free to reject help when it isn't needed. - Virginia Mayo Black, Middleton, WI ***** ** Here and There By Elizabeth M. Lennon The Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of Workers for the Blind at its 1982 annual convention honored ACB member William (Bill) Ferrell by presenting him the coveted Gladys Ridgway Award, "In recognition of unusual dedication and outstanding performance in the field of services to blind people." Mr. Ferrell is a former director of Tennessee Services for the Blind. Now retired, he and his wife Dorothy are living in Merritt Island, Florida, and are active members of the Florida Council of the Blind. Visually impaired persons of all ages are invited to spend a vacation or a weekend at the Oral Hull Recreation Center for the Blind, on the Sandy River near Sandy, Oregon. Accommodations are available in a dormitory completed in 1982, sleeping 48 persons in double rooms, or in several mobile homes on the premises. there is a recreation hall equipped with games, a small kitchen, and a dining room which seats 125 persons. For more information, write Oral Hull Foundation for the Blind, Inc., P.O. Box 157, Sandy, OR 97055. The Cleveland Society for the Blind invites inquiries concerning its Highbrook Lodge. Camp, located near Chardon, Ohio. The summer season runs from June 19 to August 29, with specific sessions geared to serve blind and visually impaired children, adults, and their families. In addition to the usual educational, cultural, and camping activities, the camp provides many services and therapies, including adjustment to visual impairment for individuals and their families, orientation and mobility, daily living skills, horticulture therapy, and music therapy. For further information, contact Camp Registrar, Cleveland Society for the Blind, 1909 E. 101 Street, Cleveland, OH 44106; A large-print catalog of aids and appliances is available from the Massachusetts Association for the Blind, 200 Ivy Street, Brooklyn, MA 02146. The catalog lists a wide range of canes, clocks and watches, calculators and other talking devices, brailling supplies, writing aids, games, low­vision aids, and more. Mail orders are accepted when accompanied by payment. ... The Perkins electric brailler is now in full production and can be ordered from stock at a cost of $400 from Howe Press, 175 N. Beacon Street, Watertown, MA 02172. A newly issued Howe Press catalog features other brailler models and accessories, slates, paper, measuring devices, drawing supplies, games, print/braille children's books, maps, and the new Perkins Videoscope, a low-vision aid. From Disabled USA: Currently, the National Library Service, Library of Congress, records selections from Disabled USA and other disability publications on a single cassette, under the name Encore. The editors of Disabled USA are interested in knowing whether readers would like to receive the entire magazine in recorded form, and whether preference is for cassette or flexible disc. If there is sufficient interest, the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped will seek to have Disabled USA made available through the Library of Congress. According to its recently issued 13th Annual Report, the American Printing House for the Blind in 1981 produced almost 50 million pages of press braille, more than 657,000 vacuum-formed pages, approximately 6 million regular-run large-type pages, over 3 million short-run large­type pages, over 400,000 cassettes, almost 5 million records, and the world's first Talking Encyclopedia. John D. Malamazian, former Chief of the Blind Rehabilitation Center, Veterans Administration Hospital, Hines, Illinois, died on March 10. Mr. Malamazian had retired on December 31, 1982, after 35 years of service at the Center. He began his career in rehabilitation in 1948 when he joined the hospital staff as a correctional therapist. The next year, he transferred to the Blind Rehabilitation Center as an orientation and mobility specialist. From this position, he moved up to assistant supervisor, assistant chief, and finally chief. In retirement, he had planned to work part-time in some capacity in the field of rehabilitation. Camille Petrecca, a blind woman in Springfield, Massachusetts, has worked out a system for producing braille crossword puzzles, according to an item in Update (National Library Service). Transcribing the puzzle diagram requires a few special techniques, which Ms. Petrecca will be glad to share with interested persons. She fills in the diagrams with materials from a kit, but notes that others have used. Scrabble tiles. The clues are transcribed into literary braille along with the diagram, so that the reader is totally independent. For information about the diagram techniques, write Camille Petrecca, Springfield Technical Community College, 1 Armory Square, Springfield, MA 01105. The Braille Book Bank of the National Braille Association announces recent publication of the following: NBA 1982 Textbook - college level textbooks, career and professional materials - print catalog, $3; braille, free. 1982 NBA Music Catalog - includes books on music theory as well as classical and popular compositions - print or braille, free. NBA Supplement to the NBA 1980 General Interest Catalog - includes 42 new titles in the areas of recreation, cooking, hobbies, computer information, popular music, health related subjects, etc. - Print or braille supplement, free. The NBA 1980 General Interest Catalog is available in print or braille at a cost of $1. All catalogs and supplements are available from NBA Braille Book Bank, 422 Clinton Avenue South, Rochester, NY 14620. ACB member Grace Napier is now a distributor for Success Motivation International, Inc., distributors of cassette books to help in various areas of life and goal-setting, motivation, positive attitudes, etc. For more information, write Dr. Grace Napier, 2011 8th Avenue; Greeley, CO 80631. "49 Recipes for Quick and Easy Creations" is available in braille, large-type, or cassette from Recipes for the Blind, Lawry Foods, P.O. Box 2572, Los Angeles, CA 90051. From Resource Update (Vision Foundation, Inc.): The National Scholarship Research Service, Box 2516, San Raphael, CA 94901, provides information about scholarships, fellowships, grants, loans, etc., for a $35 search fee. Application form questions are available on a 60-minute cassette from Dialogue Publications, 3100 Oak Park Avenue, Berwyn, IL 60402. A class action lawsuit has been instituted against the U.S. Postal Service on behalf of Mr. Phil Goldman and others similarly situated. Mr. Goldman, who is legally blind, alleges that he was denied employment by the Postal Service in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when he took an examination for the position of clerk/stenographer in 1977 and was refused an accommodation to facilitate his taking of the typing portion of the examination. A large-print examination or sound recording would have provided an adequate accommodation allowing the examination to reflect Mr. Goldman's qualifications rather than his impairment, and would have imposed a minimal burden on the Postal Service. The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Goldman is being represented by a New York City law firm, with assistance from the ACB National Office. The Independent Visually Impaired Enterprisers (IVIE), one of ACB's newest special-interest affiliates, invites new members to join the organization. The group is open to blind and visually impaired business people and to those considering going into business. Also, there is interest developing in forming a music group within ACB. For further information on either IVIE or the music group, send a cassette tape to Arnold Austin, Route 4, Box 241, Butler, MO 64730. The 1983 annual meetings of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped will be held in Daytona Beach, Florida, the weekend of November 5-6, at the Holiday Inn Surfside. Highlights include NAC's annual membership meeting, a reception and banquet, and a meeting of the NAC Board of Directors. These events are open to the public. ***** ** Calendar of Events April-July 1983 April 22-24 - ACB of Texas State Convention - Fort Worth April 23 - Arizona Council of the Blind State Convention - Phoenix April 30 - New Hampshire Council of the Blind Spring Meeting - Concord April 30 - Rhode Island Regional Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired Spring Meeting - Providence April 30 - Mississippi Council of the Blind State Convention - Jackson May 4-6 - President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped annual conference and exhibits - Washington, D.C. May 11-13 - Third Annual ACB Legislative Seminar and Leadership Training Seminar - Washington, D.C. May 13-15 - Louisiana Council of the Blind State Convention - Baton Rouge May 16-19 — Association of Radio Reading Services Ninth Annual Conference - Phoenix, Arizona May 21 - Connecticut Council of the Blind Spring Meeting - Bridgeport May 25-28 - American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities National Conference - Oklahoma City June 2-4 - Illinois Council of the Blind Leadership Training Seminar - Springfield June 3-5 - North Dakota Association of the Blind State Convention - Fargo June 3-5 - Florida Council of the Blind State Convention - Sarasota June 5-7 - NAC Commission on Accreditation meeting, hosted by the American Council of the Blind - Washington, D.C. June 11-12 - Iowa Council of the United Blind State Convention - Dubuque June 25-26 - ACB of Nebraska State Convention - Grand Island June 23-25 - Affiliated Leadership League Eighth Annual Delegate Assembly - Washington, D.C. July 2-9 - American Council of the Blind Annual Convention Week - Phoenix, Arizona July 10-14 - American Association of Workers for the Blind Annual Conference - Phoenix, Arizona ***** ** Notice to Subscribers The Braille Forum is available in braille, large-type, and two recorded editions - flexible disc (8 1/3 rpm) and cassette (15/16 ips). As a bimonthly supplement, the recorded editions also include ALL-O-GRAMS, newsletter of the Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind of America. Send subscription requests and address changes, as well as items intended for publication, to The Braille Forum,190 Lattimore Road, Rochester, NY 14620. 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 ACB 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 a special paragraph for that purpose. If your wishes are complex, you or your attorney may wish to contact the ACB National Office. ###