Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Braille Monitor 9406
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
June, 1994
Barbara Pierce, Editor
Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc,
and cassette by
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT
National Office
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
* * * *
Letters to the President, address changes,
subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
should be sent to the National Office.
* * * *
Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five
dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are
requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
* * * *
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES
ISSN 0006-8829 THE BRAILLE MONITOR
A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
CONTENTS
JUNE, 1994
ROBERT ACOSTA: A STUDY IN LAVISH LIVING AND LIMOUSINES
by Kenneth Jernigan
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND AND
BLIND VENDORS
by James Gashel
WHO WANTS BRAILLE ON THE MONEY?
by Marc Maurer
WAGE PROTECTION FOR BLIND WORKERS: THE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE
BEGINS AGAIN
by Barbara Pierce
TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
by James Gashel
A SHELTERED WORKSHOP WORKER SPEAKS
by Colleen Haslam
TESTIMONY OF A LABOR LAWYER
by Donald Elisburg
TESTIMONY BY NATIONAL INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND
by Patricia M. Beattie
FEDERATIONIST REACHES OUT
STAFF PROFILES: DONOVAN COOPER, MANAGEMENT ANALYST, R.D.I.
RECIPES
MONITOR MINIATURES
Copyright þ 1994 National Federation of the Blind [LEAD PHOTOS: (1) Mr. Maurer holds the telephone to his ear with
one hand and a walkie-talkie and his cane with the other hand.
(2) Mr. Maurer bounces off the side of the Oyngo Boyngo, with his
arms raised in the air. CAPTIONS: (1) When we are in the process
of preparing the June issue of the Braille Monitor, we always
think of the National Convention. Right is a picture of President
Marc Maurer hard at work during the 1993 National Convention. (2)
Left, he is pictured enjoying himself in an Oyngo Boyngo which
was provided to the Convention child care to use during the
Convention. Everyone who had a chance to try this enclosed
trampoline found it exhilarating fun.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Dr. Jernigan reads from the podium at National Convention. CAPTION:
Kenneth Jernigan]
[CAPTION/PHOTO: Veterans of the organized blind movement will view this
picture with nostalgia. It was taken in 1969 and shows from left to right
Rienzi Alagiyawanna, who succeeded Dr. Jacobus tenBroek as President of the
International Federation of the Blind; Dr. Isabelle Grant, who was
instrumental in organizing the blind of many countries; and Bob Acosta. In the
background is Jerry Drake, one of the leaders of the National Federation of
the Blind of California during that period.]
ROBERT ACOSTA: A STUDY IN LAVISH LIVING AND LIMOUSINES
by Kenneth Jernigan
In mid-April of this year, Complaint number BC102521 was
filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Its caption
was "California Council of the Blind versus Robert Acosta." The
circumstances leading up to this event are labyrinthine in nature
and have ramifications far beyond the borders of the state.
In 1977 Acosta became president of the California affiliate
of the National Federation of the Blind, and in 1978 he was
expelled from the Federation and found himself the center of a
lawsuit, which dragged on for several years. Two of the charges
against him were that he had put his wife on the state
affiliate's payroll without the knowledge or consent of the board
and that he had bought her an expensive clock with organization
funds.
Shortly after the conclusion of the lawsuit, early in 1983,
Acosta became president of the American Council of the Blind's
California affiliate and continued in that position until the
fall of 1992, at which time he did not run for another term,
being succeeded by John Lopez. By the time of his departure from
the California presidency, he had achieved a high profile at the
national level in American Council of the Blind (ACB) politics
and affairs. He was the organization's second vice president and
would clearly be a strong contender for its presidency at the end
of the term of LeRoy Saunders. He was also president of ALL (the
Affiliated Leadership League of and for the Blind), of which ACB
is a principal constituent. It was widely believed that he had
put a good deal of California money into both ALL and the
American Council of the Blind and that his departure from the
California presidency was meant to be a prelude to expanded
horizons at the national level. Acosta could reasonably expect
that he would not be giving anything up by relinquishing his
California presidency since he was filling the position with a
chosen lieutenant, John Lopez--but if this was his thinking, it
would take only a few months to show its disastrous fallacy. As
Lopez was to say before a roomful of people in the fall of 1993:
"I guess Mr. Acosta doesn't like for me to be an honest man--but
I will not change."
Perhaps the best way to show where things stood when Lopez
made his statement is to give pertinent parts of the recording of
a board meeting of the California Council of the Blind held at
the Crown Plaza Holiday Inn in Los Angeles, on Thursday evening,
November 4, 1993. The tape begins with a lengthy discussion
concerning several sets of minutes. Then, John Lopez, the
President of the California Council of the Blind, says:
Mrs. Parker is going to read the inventory to us--what the
Council property is, what we have, and what maybe belongs to us
but we don't have it with us and we hope to regain it or bring it
back.
Let me just briefly say a comment on the public relations.
There was a discussion [in the previous budget report] about the
reader for Mr. Urena. [This is Sid Urena, the California Council
of the Blind lobbyist, the brother of Manuel Urena, who works for
the California Department of Rehabilitation.] The $15,000 are
very justified. If you remember, there was a discussion about the
reader for Mr. Urena, our capital representative. There was quite
a discussion on that. He discovered that if his wife was not
allowed to read to him, it would be very expensive. Secretaries
would be charging over $10 an hour, and they would only work 8
hours a day, blah, blah--I don't want to go into that. But the
fact is that his wife reads to him now. If he needs her at 10:00
at night, she's there; 3:00 in the morning, she's there; and she
gets paid only very little. [applause] She is not getting paid
$10 an hour. She's getting paid $250 a month, and that is
nothing.
After these comments the inventory is read:
6 wooden desks; 5 credenzas; 2 typewriters; 3 computers; 2
laptop computers; 4 monitors; 2 laser printers, and 1 Star
printer with printer stands; 7 filing cabinets; 1 Braille
printer; 1 FAX machine with stand; 1 tape duplicator with stand;
1 postage machine with stand; 1 conference table with 6 chairs; 2
tables; 1 glass display for a CCB store; 5 storage cabinets; 13
chairs; 1 couch; 1 Franklin Dictionary Language Master; 1
miscellaneous plant [laughter]; 1 water cooler; 1 small
refrigerator; 1 microwave; 1 computer unit.
Mr. Lopez: If my memory serves me correctly, I believe there
are two items that are not in the office which we're trying to
retrieve, and that's the computer that now is under the--in Ms.
Pat Urena's home [Pat Urena is the wife of Manuel Urena], and
maybe we will be. . .
[Mr. Lopez is interrupted by a board member.] Mr. President,
I think that's something that the membership should know.
Wouldn't every member in here like to have a laptop computer that
belongs to the CCB for their use? [applause] I don't have a
question that it's justified being there, but I would like to
know why Ms. Urena has a laptop computer that belongs to the CCB.
Also, where's the other one?
John Lopez: Okay, I will give her the opportunity to explain
that to us, but at the moment we're going to proceed, and we
will. . .
[Several voices interrupt with "She's right here; let her
tell you."]
John Lopez: Okay, does the board approve of her taking the
time of the agenda now to answer that question? [Shouts of
"yes!"] Okay, no objections to that. Okay, Pat, go ahead.
Pat Urena: After years of providing services to the CCB such
as doing the histories by typewriter, doing mailing lists for
legislative receptions, having to buy some of those services,
having terrible experiences in trying to buy those services
because there's a limit to what the girls in the office can do, I
was asked if I would be willing to undertake projects for the
Council if I was provided with a computer. [unidentified board
member, "And it's free".] It certainly is, Sir. I would be
insulted. . . [momentary confused discussion] Well, I don't know
what else to say. We all understood that it was not my computer,
that it was for the Council. I provided to you--because
apparently you did not have in the office--the information on
what it consisted of. I don't know what else I can say. If
there's some imputation that something crooked was going on, I
certainly resent that. Now I trust that nothing like that was
meant or intended here. But the fact is that that's what I've
been up to with it. [Applause]
John Lopez: Am I correct? The amount of that computer, I
believe, ran up to about $5,500. I understand it has lap
capabilities or is a lap computer. I don't know; I'm ignorant
when it comes to computers. . . .
The other item that needs to be retrieved is the Language
Master Franklin Dictionaries, I believe. Like I said, I'm
ignorant when it comes to computers. But I believe that's what it
is, the Language Master Dictionary. I believe Mr. Acosta has that
one. The Council did pay for it. We have the invoice on it, and
that's another one we would like to have retrieved because it is
CCB property.
Marion Fisher: I am not saying that there's anything crooked
about Pat having the computer. I simply asked the question. I
don't say that there's anything crooked about Bob having the
Language Master. My question now is: John came to this Board
asking for a resolution and permission to buy a duplicator.
[referring to an earlier discussion about the purchase of a tape
duplicator] Did the Board give the authority to buy these laptop
computers and the Language Master Dictionary? Is that on record
as being approved by the Board, or is that something that. . .
John Lopez: No, no, no there isn't. [An exchange follows
about whether Board permission is required and why, if not, Mr.
Lopez brought the duplicator question to the Board.]
John Lopez: Let me tell you right now I'm being asked every
time I spend something. I've been criticized, so that's the way
it's going right now. Let's move on to the agenda.
I hadn't planned to have brought this up, but items that
have been going out and writing letters humiliating me and
accusing me of many things have forced me. I don't believe none
of you have received letters from me humiliating any of the board
members, and some of these letters that are circulating are
humiliating to your president of the CCB. I want to say that I'm
sure that the first vice president, Mr. Acosta, has probably
regretted that he chose a man for the presidency of the CCB--that
he chose the wrong man. And I agree, he chose the wrong man.
Because it's a man of honesty. [loud applause and shouts of
praise] Thank you very much; let's please have order. I am also a
president of integrity. Therefore, I am not going to give you
reasons, any further reasons as to. . . . I could sit here and
tell you many reasons why I'm bringing this about, but I think
the presentation will explain--will be self-explanatory. The last
year of my presidency has been a very difficult one because I've
had no support from my first vice president. There are reasons I
could give you here tonight, and I think one of the biggest
reasons--I'll give it to you briefly--was that he wanted me to
agree that he should continue with the president's financial
privileges. And I said, "Mr. Acosta, I cannot permit that. No
first vice president in this organization, as far as I can
remember, has ever come in and to continue having the financial
privileges that the president has, and I'm not about to start
that." [applause] Therefore I proceeded--now I found these things
eventually. Two months later I found out those privileges do not
belong to anybody but the president.
So two months later, when Bob and I had a meeting, I asked
him to please put on my desk his credit card--his gasoline credit
card--and to please turn in his cellular phone. At this moment
Mr. Acosta became very angry, and I think that's when he slammed
the door in my face and walked away, and things just went
against--you know I just had to go against the grain there for
the rest of the year, and that's the way it's been.
The last thing that I also told him at our budget and
finance committee meeting--after the budget meeting I said, "Mr.
Acosta, I cannot continue paying your phone bill, which the CCB
is paying for. I will reimburse you like anybody else, but we
have been paying a monthly bill from you; the lowest one that I
paid--that the CCB paid--was $104. This last year there have been
bills for $140, $130, etc. This last one is the one that
triggered off my suspicion. And that suspicion is that by
accident one of my secretaries found that a number, or a couple
of numbers--at least one--you were calling a mortgage company.
Mr. Acosta said,"Well, there was a mistake on my reader."
I said, "Well, perhaps it was a mistake. What if you hadn't
found it? How many mistakes has the CCB paid for in the last
year?" [applause]
So with that in mind it just makes things worse. I guess Mr.
Acosta doesn't like for me to be an honest man. [laughter] But I
will not change. [applause and cheering]. . .
John Lopez: Okay, so anyway, I have been elected by you, and
I will stand by you and make this organization a democratic one
and bring it back to you members. [applause]
I will now read to you the agenda item no. 8, and we'll have
our legal counsel take it from there. Number 8 reads, "The report
by retained counsel, Allan Grossman, to evaluate and advise with
respect to Mr. Acosta's refusal to sign the 1992 management
representation letter by the Council's auditor as well as other
materials which might arise in reference to such evaluation." And
I present to you Mr. Grossman. [applause]
Allan Grossman: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name
again is Allan Grossman; I'm an attorney, and, Mr. Lopez, I hand
you now my letter report, which I will now read:
_______________
John B. Lopez, President and Chair
of the Board of Directors
California Council of the Blind
8700 Reseda Blvd., Suite 208
Northridge, California
Dear Mr. Lopez:
Upon the vote of the board of directors at its September,
1993, meeting, I understand that you are authorized to retain me
to review the records of the Council concerning problems with Mr.
Acosta and to advise the board of ways it could resolve the
problems. This letter represents my interim report, which you
have asked me to read to the board of directors at its meeting
tonight. At the outset of my work you provided me with the
following background information:
1. In May, 1977, Mr. Acosta became president.
2. In November, 1992, rather than seek another term as
president, he chose to run for and was elected first
vice president.
3. All during that time, i.e., May, 1977, to the
present, he has also been a member of the board of
directors--this by virtue of the bylaws, which makes
the president chair of the board and all other officers
members of the board.
4. In November, 1992, upon assuming responsibility as
president, the matters which you asked me to
investigate started to come to your attention.
Particularly troublesome was Mr. Acosta's refusal to
sign the management representation letter to Michael
Finch, the Council's auditor, authorizing him to
finalize the 1992 audit, which to date Mr. Acosta still
refuses to sign.
The Fiduciary Duties of Officers and Directors
of Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporations
Under California Law
Officers and directors of nonprofit corporations are held to
high fiduciary standards typically associated with trustees of
charitable trusts. However, California statutory law has limited
the liability of such officers and directors for negligent acts
and omissions.
On the other hand, California law does not limit the
liability of an officer or director for intentional, wanton, or
reckless acts; gross negligence; or actions based on fraud,
oppression, or malice. The president of the Council serves on a
volunteer basis, i.e., without compensation. However, even though
serving as a volunteer and without compensation, the president is
entitled to reimbursement for or payment of reasonable,
necessary, and actual expenses incurred (a) for the benefit of
the corporation and its public or charitable purposes and (b) in
the performance or execution of his or her duties as an officer
or director of the corporation.
Put another way, it is the president's duty to ensure that
any funds raised by your organization be used only to serve its
purposes, and it would be an abuse and violation of the
president's fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the Council
if the president used his or her position in order to reap
personal benefits at the organization's expense or ignored his or
her fiduciary duty to actively promote its purposes.
Findings
With the above-mentioned principles in mind, I examined
Council records which you presented to me. After reviewing those
records, I discovered that many charges by Mr. Acosta while
president apparently were not for the benefit of the Council, but
were instead for his personal benefit. While my investigation
into those disbursements continues and is by no means complete or
final, I present to you a sampling of such items for which
apparently he has not reimbursed the Council:
1. From 1989 to 1991, he incurred nineteen separate
charges for limousine service to transport Mrs.
Acosta's niece, Julie Barth, and sometimes her husband,
Dennis Barth, to and from the Los Angeles International
Airport and from UCLA Medical Center and the Acostas'
home in Chatsworth for a charge of $2,131.
2. From 1988 to 1992 he incurred thirteen separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to and from his parents' home in San Gabriel--
$1,756.
3. In May, 1990, he incurred charges for limousine
service to transport himself, his wife, his son, and
others to his son's (Tom's) wedding reception and
hotel, etc.--$1,609.
4. From 1989 to 1990 he incurred thirty-three separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to the Weight Watchers' office in the Capri
Shopping Center in Tarzana--$1,531.
5. From 1989 to 1992 he incurred ten separate limousine
charges to transport Mrs. Acosta to and from medical
appointments, and on one occasion, from home to the
doctor, then to the beauty salon, and back home--$976.
6. In 1990 and 1991 he incurred two separate charges
for limousine service to transport himself and his wife
to Dodger Stadium--$569.
7. In January, 1987, he incurred credit card charges
for NutriSystem Weight Reduction Programs for himself
and his wife--$533.
8. From 1990 to 1991 he incurred four separate charges
for limousine service to transport himself and his wife
to the Glendale Galleria and to Mission Jewelers at the
Golden Mall in Burbank--$824.
9. The August 19, 1992, statement from American Express
Corporate Card reflects a charge for a Franklin
Language Master Computer Dictionary. To date he has
failed to return it, notwithstanding your request for
the return of all Council property in his possession--
$500.
10. In March, 1991, he incurred a charge for limousine
service to transport him and his wife to the Fisher
wedding--$465.
11. In October, 1988, he incurred two separate charges for
limousine service to transport himself, his wife, and Mr.
and Mrs. Stockstill to the Lawry Center in Santa Barbara--
$406.
12. In August, 1992, he incurred two separate charges for
limousine service to transport himself and his wife to and
from the Big Bear Inn in Big Bear, California--$397.
13. In 1986 he incurred a credit card charge for Tom's Men's
Wear in Alhambra--$367.
14. In 1991 he incurred two separate charges for limousine
service to transport himself to and from his tailor, Ron
Rinker Clothing in Los Angeles--$221.
15. On April 16, 1992, he incurred a charge for limousine
service to transport Mrs. Acosta and Lynn Curtis to the
Seafood Broiler in Northridge--$130.
16. On July 30, 1992, he incurred a charge for limousine
service to transport Mrs. Acosta's sister from LAX [acronym
for Los Angeles International Airport] to the Holiday Inn in
Brentwood--$68.
The total of items 1 through 16 equals $12,183. Please
understand that the above listing of disbursements by Mr. Acosta,
apparently for his personal benefit, is not total or complete,
but merely a representative sampling of those items that I have
been able to identify since commencing my work for you. In that
regard my investigation continues. There are, nevertheless,
several items which I believe are important enough to call to
your attention at this time and which in my opinion require
further study and evaluation. For example:
1. During the time that Mr. Acosta was president, he held a
Council American Express card, which he was entitled to use for
charging Council expenses. Reviewing some of the American Express
card statements from 1984 to 1991, I have identified numerous
restaurant charges incurred by him totalling $4,462. There are
other charges by Mr. Acosta on those statements which appear to
be personal.
2. From 1990 to 1992 he incurred charges for limousine
service to various restaurants in the amount of $833.
3. He also had available to him a Council Unicard [gasoline]
charge card. From 1985 to 1992 he charged $7,206. I'm informed
that Mr. Acosta lives in Chatsworth, which is just a few miles
north of the Council office in Northridge, and that he teaches at
Chatsworth High School, which is also close to his home. It is
difficult to understand, especially in light of all of the
limousine charges he incurred over the same period of time, how
he could have spent so much for gasoline on Council business. I
am informed that these gasoline charges were incurred by his
drivers for the Acostas' personal use and benefit. Because of the
short time that I've been involved in this matter, I am unable to
form an opinion whether these charges or any portion thereof were
properly charged to the Council or whether they should be borne
by Mr. Acosta personally.
4. I am informed that from time to time during Mr. Acosta's
presidency he hired part-time drivers to assist him with his
duties for the Council. Apparently [the State of] California paid
those people for up to fifteen hours of work as readers. The
balance of their time was paid by the Council. For example, the
Council paid Ana Banovac $13,875 from September, 1990, through
December, 1992; Vanessa Price, $1,828 from January, 1992, to
January, 1993; Barrie Mikell, $6,109 from August, 1984, to
February, 1986. Other drivers were Sandy Terry, Kim White, Ruth
Olivetto, Lisa DeAngelo, Lisa Brew, Kenny Marco, Bethany Eisland,
and Julie Harris. I understand that while some of these people
did on occasion work in the office doing photocopying and some
secretarial chores, they were used primarily by Mr. Acosta to run
personal errands for himself and his wife. This item also needs
further investigation to determine whether the amounts paid by
the Council to these people or any portion thereof were properly
charged to the Council or should have been paid by Mr. Acosta
because they were for his personal benefit.
5. I have also identified cash draws in varying amounts from
$100 to $1,000 from the Council's bank account, purportedly to
cover Mr. Acosta's out-of-pocket expenses at meetings,
conferences, and conventions. In this regard, during 1991 and
1992, he drew $10,920. I am informed that he has not supplied any
receipts for those withdrawals, nor has he returned any portion
of those funds to the Council.
Findings Regarding Helping Hands for the Blind
In October, 1990, Mr. Acosta incorporated Helping Hands for
the Blind, a California public-benefit, nonprofit corporation.
The officers of Helping Hands were Mr. Acosta as president; his
wife, Ruth Ann, as vice president; and the Council's secretaries-
-Barbara Parker as treasurer, and Marnie Alveno as secretary. He
used the facilities of the Council office and its staff to assist
him in the formation and operation of that corporation.
I believe that, soon after incorporation, Mr. Acosta
acquired a thrift store in Lancaster for Helping Hands. That
thrift store was in direct competition with the exclusive
contract the Council had with Bill Ashe and his American Way
thrift stores. In the spring of 1991 Mr. Acosta on behalf of the
Council was renegotiating the Council's contract with Mr. Ashe.
Mr. Ashe complained to Mr. Acosta that he thought it was improper
for him to be running a thrift store in direct competition with
the Council's thrift stores, and apparently he used that fact
among others to help him renegotiate his American Way thrift
store contract with the Council. The new American Way thrift
store contract became operational July 1, 1991, resulting in more
than a $100,000-a-year reduction in the amount that Mr. Ashe pays
the Council. At this time it is not clear whether Mr. Acosta's
Helping Hand thrift store is still operating. Further
investigation is needed in that regard. Nevertheless, if the
above facts are true, Mr. Acosta may be liable to the Council for
monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages for
operating a thrift store in direct competition with the Council's
American Way thrift stores. In my opinion this would constitute a
breach of his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Council and its
public and charitable purposes.
I inquired of the Council's staff, particularly Barbara
Parker and Marnie Alveno, long-time secretaries with the Council,
whether they assisted Mr. Acosta in the formation/operation of
Helping Hands. They stated that they had assisted him but only
because he compelled them to do so under threat of losing their
jobs. [boos from audience] In January, 1993, both Barbara Parker
and Marnie Alveno resigned as officers of Helping Hands.
Recommendations
1. It is my recommendation for the board that these matters
be settled with Mr. Acosta, which I understand would be the
preference of the Council in light of the many years he served as
an officer and director. I would urge, however, that negotiations
begin within fifteen days and that the matter be settled within
thirty days.
2. If the matter is not amicably settled within thirty days,
it is my recommendation that the Council immediately commence
litigation against Mr. Acosta, seeking all remedies which the law
makes available to the Council under such circumstances.
Resolution of the above matters with Mr. Acosta is in my
opinion necessary for the following reasons:
1. Possible loss of tax-exempt status with the Internal
Revenue Service. The Council's tax-exempt status as a nonprofit
corporation is granted under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code--the Code provision applicable to charitable
organizations. This section requires "that no part of the net
earnings of the exempt organization inure to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual." Courts have construed this
requirement to prohibit self-dealing by officers and directors of
tax-exempt corporations. Since the IRS polices those
organizations for violations of fiduciary duties established by
the Code, if it finds such self-dealing by an officer or
director, it may among other penalties include forfeiture of the
corporation's tax-exempt status.
2. Possible loss of grants and donations.
3. Complaints filed with the state's attorney general. The
other day I spoke with Mr. Baumann, the auditor for the
charitable trust section of the state attorney general. Mr.
Baumann informed me that he has received a number of telephone
calls complaining about improper disbursements by the Council
which may have occurred while Mr. Acosta was president. Mr.
Baumann stated that he had requested those telephone callers to
put their complaints in writing but to date has not received any
letters from them. He said that, if the attorney general receives
letters of complaint about the Council, his office is charged by
law to investigate such written complaints and, if true, to
prosecute appropriate actions to remedy violation of the state's
nonprofit corporations laws dealing with improper and illegal
disbursements.
4. Possible action by the state attorney general against the
directors personally if they should fail to pursue Mr. Acosta if
it is established that the above matters related in this letter
are true.
Respectfully submitted,
Allan F. Grossman
__________
Marion Fisher: By your last statement does that mean that,
if we do not pursue any action and the state attorney general
investigates this and finds that there is wrongdoing, that this
wrongdoing falls on the shoulders of every board member?
Allan Grossman: Yes, Mr. Fisher. I have in the course of my
research of the law found several cases--not from California but
from other states, sister states--where the state attorney
general commenced litigation against innocent board members of
nonprofit corporations because they were neglectful and had
failed to prosecute the errant officer or director.
Roger Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I think before we go on with
this discussion, it would be appropriate to move, and I therefore
do move, that we accept this report. [Someone seconds the
motion.]
John Lopez: All in favor please signify by saying "Aye."
[Ayes are heard.] Opposed. [No opposition is heard.] Thank you.
Allan Grossman: I would like to add two comments that are
not in the letter, Mr. Lopez, if I may.
John Lopez: Yes, you may.
Allan Grossman: Number one, I want you to know and your
board to know that I have--and I have them with me if anyone
would like to examine them--the records that I used which will
support the matters stated in my letter report tonight. That
stack of records from your office weighs in excess of six pounds
[Whistles from the audience] and is about five inches high. The
other thing that I would like to state, as I mentioned in my
report: this is a tentative report, an interim report, and no
more than a couple of hours ago in the corridor I was advised
that the item that I reported here of some $1,600 for limousine
service for Mr. Acosta's son's wedding was actually understated
and the actual invoices for the limousine service for that
wedding was $2,200. So it is important that your board understand
that this investigation is still ongoing and is not meant to be a
total, final, and complete report at this time.
Jeff Tom: Regarding the length of time in your
recommendations, can you tell us why you chose such short periods
for commencing litigation if negotiations don't work?
Allan Grossman: Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Baumann, the
auditor in the charitable trust section in the nonprofit
corporation section of the attorney general's office for Southern
California, has advised me that there are these telephone
complaints about your Council--about your organization--and he
was, I think, glad to hear that your organization is looking into
these matters, and he asked me to call him next week and to
report back to him what action if any your board took.
There's also the possibility, as I mentioned, that if the
IRS should choose to investigate--they do do random checks of
nonprofit corporations--whether your organization would come up
during one of those random audits by the IRS, I don't know. But
it seems to me that these are matters that have gone on for a
long time. There may be other problems as more time goes on, the
memory of people fades, witnesses move away, records are lost or
destroyed. I think now that this effort has been made to look
into these matters, and because they involve possible violation
of fiduciary duties, it's incumbent upon your organization to act
promptly.
Winifred Downing: In view of the fact that not one letter of
the phone calls that have been registered with the attorney
general, that there's been no supporting evidence of those
complaints in writing--not one--I would like to propose, since
Mr. Acosta hasn't had a chance to do this kind of investigation
and may have some replies to all of this, that the period be
extended. I don't think we're going to jail if it's a month
longer.
Roger Peterson: I think the appropriate way to do this would
be to get a motion on the floor; then we can do whatever we wish
with the motion. Therefore, I move that the board of directors
directs the president to continue to follow the advice of legal
counsel and to implement the recommendations as stated in the
letter report. [The motion is seconded.]
Unidentified speaker: I think what Win and Jeff are saying
is that every member has a right to defend himself, to have
access to these documents, and to have their attorney. To date,
Mr. Acosta hasn't been able to get in to look at the books. I
think the supporting documents need to be examined, and as slow
as legal matters are and arranging for attorneys, I think that
thirty days is much too short--Mr. Acosta is not the president,
he does not have the credit cards--that this matter can wait
certainly another thirty or sixty days. Let's give him a fair
chance to answer these charges. [applause]
Jeff Tom: My position was misstated, not intentionally, I
think. I was asking a question to our attorney. That wasn't
necessarily my position, and I just wanted to see what his
reasoning was. I think that upon his recommendation, and
especially in light of the fact that it's obvious that just the
commencement of litigation won't mean the end of it, that in that
case everything is going to be seen by everyone, that I think we
should indeed go along with the recommendation of our attorney.
Marion Fisher: Mr. President and other members of the board,
I've been on this board for approximately a year. Apparently most
of these things, these allegations, existed--happened--more than
a year ago. I myself, as a present member of the board of
directors, do not feel like taking a chance of having this fall
on my shoulders for something that happened in the past. I do
take my responsibilities as a member of the board of directors to
what extent that I should, but I don't think that I should take a
chance on having something that happened two years ago, five
years ago, ten years ago, that I was not any way related to,
being a party of, or having any knowledge of--I don't want it
falling on my shoulders, and I feel that we should definitely
follow the recommendations of the attorney. [applause]
[At this point the tape runs out, and some words are missing
as the new side begins.]
Chris Gray: . . .there's a thing for CCB. We've been tied up
in knots for the last nine months. Our initiatives are dampened,
in many cases, taken away from us, and we don't need to be tied
up for thirty days, or three months, or six months, while we
wrangle back and forth, sending a lot of letters back and forth.
If our attorney feels that twenty days is better than fifteen, or
if we're making a lot of progress in forty days instead of
thirty, I'm sure he'd tell us, and I'm sure John would follow it.
Winifred Downing: I want to amend the motion in spite of all
the conversation and things that have been said. I would like to
amend the motion to give Mr. Acosta more time [Applause and
shouts of "no"] We are going to get to vote on the amendment,
Board of Directors, so it will not be rammed down your throat,
and the members of the audience is not going to get to vote on
it. I wish to amend the motion to be just to somebody who has
given the organization, whatever his faults are, many years of
service. And I'm not denying his faults, but you guys cannot deny
the service either. And you can't deny the fact. . . [much
commotion of scattered applause and shouts] Please let me finish.
John Lopez: [shouting] Let's have order, please; let's have
order, please.
Winifred Downing: I'm not denying that there are faults
here. I am telling you that the Council now is an extremely--and
a year ago was when Bob left it--extremely large organization,
much stronger than it was in 1978 when we had the split. Somebody
worked, a lot of people worked, but he also worked very hard. In
justice I think we should give him a little time to answer these
charges. That does not say that I'm forgiving him these charges.
It says that I think he should have time to answer them and that
thirty days is a very short time. He has not been in the office
to look at the books, and he may not be able to find the readers
right away to do that. I can't sometimes. . . [jeers] I don't
think it's right for the audience to comment. This is a board
decision, and the board will get to vote. [jeers and comments
about kicking out] I'm not kicking anybody anywhere. I really
resent this kind of activity. I think it's very unjust. If I were
in a position, I would want to be given a fair shake, and I think
you guys--you're not going to lose it for giving it a month. And
Marion isn't going to go to jail if we give [Bob Acosta] an extra
month. I'm not going to jail either, so an extra month isn't
going to mean anything to us, really, and it may mean a great
deal to him.
I don't know if it matters--I know nothing about legal
action, and I don't therefore know how much it will mean.
[confused comments in the background as she speaks] Will anybody
second the amendment before we go any further than that?
Unidentified voice: What was it?
I just said I amended the motion to extend the time by
thirty days.
Unidentified voice: What was Roger's motion please?
John Lopez: Roger, what was your motion please?
Roger Peterson: The motion was to follow the recommendations
of the legal counsel.
Winifred Downing: And I am not amending that process. I
think we should follow the recommendations. All I'm asking is an
extension in time. So, you know, don't boo me out of the
organization.
Connie Schoeman: Is there a second to that--was it seconded?
John Lopez: Yes it is. Mr. Grossman, was your recommendation
fifteen to thirty days?
Allan Grossman: Yes.
Connie Schoeman: Excuse me, Mr. President, point of
information. This hour of the night I tend to get confused. We
have an amendment now, am I correct, that says you wish to extend
the time?
Winifred Downing: Yes.
Connie Schoeman: And that was seconded by Don. And we're not
voting on Roger's motion? We have to vote now on the amendment.
Am I correct?
Winifred Downing: That's correct.
Connie Schoeman: Good for me. [laughter] Could we hear the
original recommendation? Would you read it back to us please, Mr.
Grossman?. . .
Allan Grossman: Let me read all of my recommendations again
so that--there are only two short paragraphs. [He rereads the
recommendations from his letter.]
Marion Fisher: Mr. President, I for one think the amendment
has not stated any amount of time.
Winifred Downing: It did! it did! thirty days!
Marion Fisher: It did state another thirty days? Pardon me.
But my feeling is that I would love to see us settle this matter
with Mr. Acosta because I expressed to Mr. Acosta in the board
meeting--at the end of the board meeting on September 25--that it
really pained me to see the way, as Chris put it, that he kept
this Council tied up in knots for the last nine months. Because
I, among many other people, realize what one hell of a bunch of
work Bob put into this Council over the years. And it just breaks
my heart to see him tear down what he worked so hard to do in
fifteen years--to tear it down in one year.
Winifred Downing: Well, is thirty days going to make a lot
of difference here?
Marion Fisher: Well, I'm afraid I don't think thirty days is
going to make any difference. I don't think sixty; I think it's
either going to be settled now or it's not going to be settled.
Unidentified male voice: Mr. President, I would like to
speak in favor of the amendment. If we--when we talk about
initiating litigation and things like that, it's kind of like
atomic war because this will tie up the organization for at least
four or five years if we go to court. Every court case that I've
ever been involved in or seen with organizations lasts forever.
The last one we were in lasted longer than the Second World War.
So let's give another thirty days and hope we can resolve this
matter.
Unidentified female voice, interrupting: Mr. President, I
have a point of information for Mr. Grossman if I may? Mr.
Grossman, I'm not a lawyer person. I was tangled up with an
organization you mentioned a while ago; I worked for them for
eighteen years, but I'm still not a lawyer. And my question to
you is, isn't it usual--if we did follow your recommendation, if
his lawyer doesn't have enough time, they have the ability to
call you and say we need more time--haven't I seen lawyers do
that back and forth?
Allan Grossman: Yes, certainly. If a good faith effort is
being made by both sides to settle this matter, I certainly
would--and some additional time was needed--I certainly would
come back to your board and recommend that. I think it behooves
the organization in light of these matters that some effort be
made by Mr. Acosta to promptly begin the process. And I take it
that these are not brand new matters. Perhaps the specificity of
what I have said is new, but apparently, as I've heard here,
there's been problems about these things for the past nine
months. So it's not as if--as far as I know--it's not as if it's
a brand new item.
So I think I would--my recommendation is as I stated. Let
the negotiations begin. If there is good faith and more time is
needed to give Mr. Acosta an opportunity to be heard, I would
certainly recommend that to the Board.
The unidentified female voice: Mr. Chairman, I call for the
question on the amendment.
John Lopez: I would like to make a comment before that. . .
. I would like to say that in this negotiation we include that
Mr. Acosta no longer continue issuing letters, harassing the
president of the CCB, harassing the staff, and downplaying or
humiliating the president and the CCB officers--that this stop
now! [applause] I have had it! This kind of childish play must
stop now; we cannot focus our attention on CCB work if we're
going to have to tolerate childish and rotten letters that are
not beneficial to the benefit of this organization. [applause]
The same female voice: We've called for the question to the
amendment, Mr. President.
[After a good bit of confusion and effort to clarify the
intent of the amendment, it fails when put to the vote, but not
resoundingly. applause]. . .
John Lopez: On Roger's, the motion was to accept the
recommendation of the attorney, and we'll vote on it. All in
favor of the recommendation of the attorney signify by saying
"Aye." [The motion passes unanimously.] Thank you. [applause]
Okay, Mr. Grossman, just for the point of clarification, would
you please state the recommendation that we just now passed?
Allan Grossman: Yes. That settlement negotiations with Mr.
Acosta and his attorney begin within fifteen days from today, and
that the matter be amicably resolved by settlement within thirty
days. In the event that the matter is not settled within thirty
days, that litigation be commenced immediately thereafter.
John Lopez: Okay. I think at this point it's appropriate
that we ask Mr. Acosta to come forward and make a statement. If
you wish, Mr. Acosta, the floor is all yours.
[After some discussion Bob Acosta reads a resolution
commending Denise and David Weddle for their work at CCB for
twenty-three years.]
John Lopez: Okay, Mr. Acosta, you have the floor to talk in
regard to the issues.
Bob Acosta: My dear friends,. . . My dear friends, I guess
we're dealing with trust. In the political letters that we sent--
and they were, I thought, mostly political--I told you that I
would be sued. I told you that it would happen because we haven't
dealt with another issue that must be dealt with, and that is the
$16,000 of overtime for secretarial assistance last year. I
understand what is going on. I lived through 1978, and at that
time Ken Jernigan sued me for $15,000,000. [An unidentified voice
interrupts with, "Because you hired your wife."] And by the way,
if my home were burning, I don't know that I'd go to some of you
guys for help. But that's all right. I can assure you that I've
never gotten rich on the Council. I categorically deny all of
those charges, and I look forward to the opportunity of
responding in writing. And yet this board, many people have pre-
judged, they said hey, let's throw this blind man in jail and
let's give him only fifteen days to respond. But you've made your
choice, and I will respond to it. I ask you in spite of the fact
that I wonder what this lawyer is charging us for his time at the
end of the agenda. You gotta think about that. I wonder what's
up--you know these charges, many of them, all of them, are
totally untrue, and I look forward to responding to them. But see
it for what it is: a political smear--an attempt to avoid the
question of a $16,000 overtime which I never authorized, and
we've got to deal with that. You can't avoid it. Thank you, and
God bless you all.
John Lopez: I must repeat what Chris Gray said a while ago:
Bob, you wrote the book.
The remainder of the meeting consisted of comments
concerning the amount of time worked by CCB staff and discussion
of a motion to do whatever was necessary to work with the
National Federation of the Blind to see that a strong Braille
bill is passed by the California legislature. At the close of the
meeting members of the audience were invited to comment on the
issues raised during the evening.
The California Council of the Blind convention at which this
board meeting occurred was one of the most turbulent in the
organization's history, with each party (the staff, the board,
and Bob Acosta) having its own attorney, dealing at arm's length,
and prepared to do battle. There was tumult among the membership
as well. One of those attending was Peter-Marc Damien, who said
in the Spring, 1994, Blind Californian:
The Fall CCB Convention for 1993 will no doubt be remembered
in the blind community as one of the most contentious in history.
. . . . Bob Acosta was president of the CCB for sixteen
years. In November, 1992, he hand-picked John Lopez to succeed
him due to directives from the American Council of the Blind, to
which Acosta aspired for national office. John was chosen because
Bob thought he could control him. John, on the other hand,
decided to be his own man. In an audit for 1992, there were some
discrepancies which came to John's attention. Lopez fired the
longtime accountant/treasurer, hired another and studied the
books going back to the beginning of Acosta's tenure, finding all
kinds of misuse of funds. One thing led to another and by
October, 1993, Acosta had hired lawyers and set up a slate of
officers (who were bound to support him) for the election to be
held in LA at the Convention. Lopez set up another slate (who
were bound to support "CCB") through the CCB Nominations
Committee.
Acosta had also accused the sighted staff of financial
discrepancies. So they hired lawyers. CCB was really forced to
hire lawyers, too! The first public showdown, Thursday night,
revealed that the new accountant/treasurer had found receipts for
the misuse of CCB funds. Some examples were limo services, a taxi
hired to drive roundtrip from LA to Big Bear (that one was for
$2,200 alone), fees at NutriSystems and Weight Watchers, men's
wear, and so forth.
The Convention exploded on the spot, dividing into several
camps. The longtime membership, many of whom were older people,
divided into two groups, those who supported Acosta no matter
what, and those who felt betrayed and angry. The newer
membership, mostly younger people, including students, as well as
older people, new (within the last five years) to the
organization (people like me) were mostly disgusted with the
whole thing. We were, it turned out, ready to vote for change.
A coalition became apparent when voting began Friday
evening. Lopez dragged the whole Convention through all the
accusations yet another time before entertaining a motion to stop
debate. Acosta wanted the debate to continue. It was a measure to
test the water, as it turned out, because the Acosta faction lost
about two to one. In the election for second vice president, Don
Queen, Acosta's candidate, lost to Cathy Skivers, also by about
two to one. Lopez's candidate for treasurer, the same man
appointed to review the books, who made the best treasurer's
report in the history of CCB the night before, won by better than
two to one. He was nominally opposed, not by Acosta's candidate,
Pat Urena, who was never nominated, but by someone else. By the
time the positions on the board came up for a vote, Acosta's
candidates either declined nomination or were not nominated at
all. Basically, it was a rout, followed by a motion to recall
Acosta from his position as first vice president, which was voted
at the final session on Sunday.
This is how one convention attendee viewed the November
meeting of the California Council of the Blind, and national
repercussions were soon to follow. Acosta either resigned from
(or in some other way was separated from) the position of second
vice president of the American Council of the Blind. This was
done quietly with only a brief routine announcement in ACB's
publication. Acosta also ceased to be president of ALL, again
with no public statement or fanfare. The situation was obviously
and understandably a cause of extreme embarrassment.
Meanwhile, the months dragged by, and the California Council
of the Blind took no action against Acosta. Sources within the
organization indicate that internal bickering and consternation
were extreme--some hoping that Acosta would make restitution,
others feeling that he should be prosecuted immediately, and
still others holding that he should be given mercy. Many
apparently felt totally disillusioned and simply turned away with
disgust.
Finally (on April 12, 1994) the CCB took action and filed a
lawsuit against Acosta in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Alleging fraud and violation of fiduciary duties, the Complaint
sets forth the cause of action. Item 4 of the Complaint is
noteworthy since it makes clear that others besides Acosta may
ultimately be sued. It reads as follows:
4. Plaintiff sues fictitious defendants, Does 1
though 20, inclusive, and each of them, because their
names and/or capacitates and/or facts showing them
liable to plaintiff are not presently known. Unless
otherwise indicated, each defendant is sued as the
agent and/or employee of every other defendant acting
within the course and scope of said agency and/or
employment, with the knowledge, direction, and/or
consent of said co-defendants. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and therefore alleges that each defendant
designated herein as a "Doe" was responsible,
intentionally, or wrongfully, or in some actionable
manner, for the events and happenings referred to
herein which were a legal cause of the injury and
damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
Item 6 begins to give the specifics of the charges:
6. Defendant Acosta, while an officer and director
of plaintiff corporation, breached the above stated
fiduciary duties of care in the following manner and
ways:
(a) During the time Mr. Acosta was president, he
held a Council American Express card which he was
entitled to use only for charging Council expenses.
From 1984 to 1991, he made numerous restaurant charges
on that credit card totaling approximately $4,462.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that said charges were for Acosta's personal
benefit at plaintiff's expense, in an exact amount that
will be established at trial.
(b) From 1990 to 1992, Acosta incurred charges for
limousine services to various restaurants, in the
approximate amount of $833. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and therefore alleges that said charges were
for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's expense,
in an exact amount that will be established at trial.
(c) Acosta also had available to him a Council
Unocal [gasoline] charge card. From 1985 to 1992, he
charged approximately $7,206. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and therefore alleges that said charges were
for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's expense,
in an exact amount that will be established at trial.
(d) During Acosta's presidency, he hired part-time
drivers purportedly to assist him with his duties for
the Council. For example, the Council paid Ana Banovac
approximately $13,875 from September 1990 through
December 1992; Vanessa Price approximately $1,828 from
January 1992 to January 1993; Barrie Mikell
approximately $6,109 from August 1984 through February
1986. Other drivers were also hired by him and paid by
the Council. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges these drivers were used primarily by
Acosta to run personal errands for himself and his wife
and were for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's
expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
trial.
(e) During his presidency, Acosta took cash draws
in varying amounts from $100 to $1,000 from the
Council's bank account, purportedly to cover his out-
of-pocket expenses at Council meetings, conferences,
and conventions. In this regard, during 1991 and 1992,
he drew approximately $10,920; that he has not supplied
any receipts for those draws nor has he returned any
portion of those funds to the Council. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and therefore alleges that these
draws were for Acosta's personal benefit at plaintiff's
expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
trial.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that during the time Acosta was
president of the Council, he fraudulently, dishonestly,
and unethically spent its charitable trust funds to
maintain a lavish personal lifestyle at the Council's
expense, in an exact amount that will be established at
trial. The following are examples of the ways in which
Acosta fraudulently, dishonestly, and unethically
breached his fiduciary duties of care to plaintiff by
spending corporate charitable trust funds to reap
personal benefits:
(a) From 1989 to 1991, he incurred 19 separate
charges for limousine service to transport Mrs.
Acosta's niece, Julie Barth (and sometimes her husband
Dennis Barth) to and from Los Angeles International
Airport, to and from UCLA Medical Center, and the
Acosta home in Chatsworth, in the approximate sum of
$2,131.
(b) From 1988 to 1992, he incurred 13 separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to and from his parents' home in San Gabriel,
in the approximate sum of $1,756.
(c) In May, 1990, he incurred charges for
limousine service to transport himself, his wife, his
son, and others to his son Tom's wedding reception,
hotel, etc., in the approximate sum of $1,609.
(d) From 1989 to 1990, he incurred 33 separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to the Weight Watchers office in the Capri
Plaza shopping center in Tarzana, in the approximate
sum of $1,531.
(e) From 1989 to 1992, he incurred 10 separate
charges for limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta
to and from medical appointments and, on one occasion
from home to the doctor, then to the beauty salon, and
then back home, in the approximate sum of $976.
(f) In 1990 and 1991, he incurred two
separate charges for limousine service to transport
himself and his wife to Dodger Stadium, in the
approximate sum of $569.
(g) In January, 1987, he incurred credit card
charges for the Nutri-System weight reduction program
for himself and his wife, in the approximate sum of
$533.
(h) From 1990 to 1991, he incurred four separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to the Glendale Galleria and to Mission
Jewelers at the Golden Mall in Burbank, in the
approximate sum of $524.
(i) A statement, dated August 19, 1992, from
American Express Corporate Card, reflects a charge for
a Franklin Language Master computer dictionary, which
he has not returned to plaintiff, notwithstanding
plaintiff's request for the return of all Council
property in his possession, in the approximate sum of
$500.
(j) In March, 1991, he incurred a charge for
limousine service to transport him and his wife to the
Fisher wedding, in the approximate sum of $465.
(k) In October, 1988, he incurred two separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself, his
wife, and friends, Mr. and Mrs. Stockstill, to the
Lawry Center in Santa Barbara, in the approximate sum
of $406.
(l) In August 1992, he incurred two separate
charges for limousine service to transport himself and
his wife to and from The Big Bear Inn, in the
approximate sum of $397.
(m) In 1986, he incurred a credit charge for Tom's
Men's Wear in Alhambra, in the approximate sum of $367.
(n) In 1991, he incurred two separate charges for
limousine service to transport him to and from his
tailor, Ron Rinker Clothing in Los Angeles, in the
approximate sum of $221.
(o) On April 16, 1992, he incurred a charge for
limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta and Lynn
Curtis to the Seafood Broiler in Northridge, in the
approximate sum of $130.
(p) On July 30, 1992, he incurred a charge for
limousine service to transport Mrs. Acosta's sister
from Los Angeles International Airport to the Holiday
Inn in Brentwood, in the approximate sum of $68.
8. As a result of Acosta's fraudulent breaches of
his fiduciary duties of care owed to plaintiff as
alleged above, plaintiff prays that the court assess
the compensatory damages for all of the fraudulent and
illegal breaches of the fiduciary duty of care owed to
plaintiff in an exact amount that will be established
at trial.
9. That because Acosta fraudulently breached his
fiduciary duties of care to plaintiff in a despicable,
deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner to
injure and damage plaintiff, plaintiff requests the
assessment of exemplary damages against defendants, and
each of them, in an amount to be established according
to proof at the time of trial.
10. Plaintiff also requests the award of
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1021.5.
11. Plaintiff also requests the award of
prejudgment interest to the extent allowable under
section 3287 or 3288 of the Civil Code.
Count 2
For Compensatory and Punitive Damages for Fraudulent Breach
of Fiduciary Duties of Loyalty Against Robert Acosta. Does 11
Through 20, and Each of Them
12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 5 and paragraphs 8 through 11, inclusive, are
realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
13. In October 1990, Acosta incorporated Helping
Hands For the Blind, a California public benefit
nonprofit corporation. The officers of Helping Hands
were Mr. Acosta as president, and his wife Ruth Ann as
vice president. He used the facilities of the Council
office and its staff to assist him in the formation and
operation of that corporation. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and therefore alleges that
soon after
incorporation, Acosta acquired a thrift store to
benefit Helping Hands, and that thrift store was in
direct competition with the exclusive contract the
Council had with Bill Ashe and his American Way Thrift
Stores.
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that in the spring of 1991, Acosta,
on behalf of the Council, was renegotiating the
Council's contract with Mr. Ashe. That Mr. Ashe
complained to Acosta that he thought it was improper
for him to be running a thrift store in direct
competition with the Council's thrift stores and that
he used that fact, among others, to help him to
renegotiate his American Way Thrift Stores contract
with the Council. The new American Way Thrift Stores
contract became operational July 1, 1991, resulting in
more than $100,000 a year reduction in the amount Mr.
Ashe paid to the Council under the original contract.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Acosta has been running and
representing to the public that Helping Hands Thrift
Store is owned and operated by the Council, and by and
through such fraudulent misrepresentation, made profits
that rightly belong to plaintiff. That an accounting of
such illegally obtained profits must be had in order to
determine the exact amount of such illegally obtained
profits and damages.
Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against
defendants Robert Acosta, Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
and each of them, as follows:
a. For compensatory damages according to proof;
b. For exemplary damages according to proof;
c. For attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;
d. For prejudgment interest to the extent
allowable under section 3287 or 3288 of the Civil Code;
e. For such other relief and damages as the court
deems just and proper in the premises.
This is what the Complaint says, and it boggles the mind.
The Monitor has repeatedly tried to call Mr. Acosta for comment,
but we only get his answering machine. Therefore, the documents
must speak for themselves.
In view of the charges and the circumstances surrounding
them, certain questions inevitably occur. Since the charges
against Acosta were well known and a matter of public record when
he was expelled from the National Federation of the Blind in
1978, why did the California Council of the Blind elect and re-
elect him term after term? Why did the American Council of the
Blind make him an officer and one of their principal leaders? Why
did ALL elect him their president? Why were auditors and
officials of the California Council of the Blind not aware of the
details of what is now being revealed? If they were aware, why
did they not blow the whistle sooner? Why did cash draws in the
amount of more than $10,000 (draws that were made with no
receipts or explanations) go unchallenged when they were
obviously apparent? Why was action not taken against the Helping
Hands For The Blind corporation, and is it (as we have been told)
still operating and raising funds? Why was action not taken when
Helping Hands For The Blind began sending fundraising letters to
blind persons throughout the country, a fact that was widely
known? What is the full extent of the Helping Hands For The Blind
operation, who is it really benefitting, and is the California
Attorney General or others taking remedial steps? Why did the
office of the California Attorney General not take action upon
learning of the facts that have been revealed instead of saying
that they would need an outside person to make a written
complaint? Why was the lawsuit not filed last fall in accord with
the vote taken at the November board meeting instead of in April,
more than five months later?
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is not
just the American Council of the Blind or its California
affiliate that is hurt. All of us are hurt--organizations of the
blind, agencies for the blind, and individual blind people.
Certainly the American Council of the Blind will find this
situation embarrassing, but we must maintain perspective. I for
one have found nothing but honesty and fairness in my dealings
with ACB's president, LeRoy Saunders. I believe I would have the
same experience in contacting many other ACB leaders. Neither the
ACB nor its individual members can be blamed for the failings of
one person, or even one leader. They can be blamed, however, if
they fail to take proper action once the circumstances are known.
The fact that Mr. Acosta is no longer an ACB national officer
speaks for itself. But the fact that he was elected and was
recognized as a leader year after year also speaks for itself.
Something else is worth noting. We are told that phone number
(818) 341-8217 rings in Mr. Acosta's home in Chatsworth,
California. If this is true, it is troubling--especially in view
of an item carried in the May, 1994, Braille Forum, the
publication of the American Council of the Blind. Here it is:
Cookbook Of The Month: Helping Hands For the Blind
has formed a "Cookbook of the Month" club, which is
currently producing Braille cookbooks on various food
items. For more information, call (818) 341-8217, or
write to Helping Hands For The Blind, 20734C Devonshire
Street, Chatsworth, California 91311.
Although this notice is carried in the Braille Forum, it is
not absolutely and finally conclusive. It is possible (though
difficult to accept) that the editors of the magazine did not
know about Mr. Acosta's circumstances and his relationship with
Helping Hands For The Blind. Even if they did know, it is
possible (though, again, difficult to accept) that ACB's elected
officers did not know that the Helping Hands item would be
published in their magazine--especially, since they could (and
probably should) have taken steps to prevent this. There comes a
time when responsibility must be accepted.
None of us should take joy in the shocking story of lavish
living and limousines that has been revealed. Again, it must be
emphasized that nobody gains and everybody loses. Rather than
feel satisfaction or point fingers, we should consider the damage
that has been done and how to mitigate it. Among the essentials
in the process are accountability, organizational maturity, and
lack of recrimination.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Dennis Groshel]
HISTORIC VICTORY
FOR THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
AND BLIND VENDORS
by James Gashel
From the Editor: For years now we have been following the
struggle between the Minnesota licensing agency for blind vendors
(the Department of Jobs and Training), representing Dennis
Groshel, a vendor in St. Cloud, and the Veterans' Canteen
Service. The National Federation of the Blind has assisted and
advised Minnesota officials and Dennis Groshel throughout this
long ordeal, and at last we can report that this case has ended
in a complete victory for Dennis, for the Minnesota licensing
agency, and for vendors in the states served by the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The issues decided in this case will
undoubtedly rise again, but there is now a strong precedent to
help future vendors pressured by federal agencies wishing to
sidestep provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Here is the
story as told by James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs
for the National Federation of the Blind, who was a member of the
original arbitration panel in the Groshel case. This is what he
has to say:
The federal Randolph-Sheppard Act directs that "priority" be
given to blind persons in the operation of vending facilities on
federal property. This mandate applies to all departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States. Nonetheless
the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Veterans Canteen
Service (VCS) have been particularly stubborn in refusing to
abide by the law. The Department operates 171 medical center
facilities throughout the country. Each state, with the exception
of Alaska, has at least one of these centers, and several states
have many more.
In theory there should not be the slightest doubt about
whether the veterans' facilities are subject to the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, but for many years that has not stopped
the Department of Veterans Affairs from resisting the application
of the priority for blind vendors. The Department has contended
that the VCS has the exclusive right by law to serve patients,
visitors, and others at the medical centers which it operates.
The National Federation of the Blind has held exactly the
opposite view.
Dennis Groshel is a licensed blind vendor in Minnesota. He
is also an active and long-time member of the National Federation
of the Blind. Beginning in 1985, he was assigned to a vending
facility, consisting entirely of vending machines, at the
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center located in St.
Cloud, Minnesota. The vending machines at the medical center site
had been serviced by a blind vendor since 1977. This was an
exception to the Department of Veterans Affairs' general rule.
The arrangement between the VCS and the licensing agency for
blind vendors in Minnesota was an ordinary commercial vending
contract. In agreeing to this arrangement, the VCS was not
conceding that the Randolph-Sheppard Act would have any
applicability at the St. Cloud medical center or at any similar
site. From the VCS's point of view it was irrelevant that the
machines were being serviced by a blind vendor who was licensed
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
A commercial vending contract differs from an agreement used
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act in at least two respects. First,
a contract has a limited term, normally three or five years, with
two noncompetitive extensions allowed for satisfactory
performance. The Randolph-Sheppard agreement, technically
referred to as a "permit," is for an indefinite period, subject
to cancellation only in the event of non-performance. Second,
commercial contracts require vending machine operators to pay a
commission fee based on sales. No commission is charged for sales
made by blind vendors under Randolph-Sheppard permits.
In 1985, when Dennis Groshel took over the St. Cloud medical
center vending machines, the contract was due to expire in 1987.
It was uncertain whether he would be awarded the contract after
that time. Also Dennis was required to pay an amount equal to
seventeen percent of his gross revenues directly to the VCS as a
sales commission. The contract required this payment. These
conditions--the periodic termination of the contract and the
sales commission--were not imposed upon other blind vendors in
the state. The situation raised questions of basic fairness and
about the applicability of the law.
To its credit the Department of Jobs and Training concluded
that Dennis Groshel should be treated like all of the other
vendors in its program. Therefore, the licensing agency asked the
VCS to issue a normal Randolph-Sheppard permit for the continued
operation of the vending machines at the St. Cloud medical center
after the 1987 expiration of the existing commercial vending
contract. The application for a permit was filed in 1986, and
soon thereafter the written response came back. The VCS refused
the permit request with the stated reason that the medical center
(and by implication all similar ones) are exempt from the
priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
At this point the battle was joined. The legal question was
whether the priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
apply to property which is served by the VCS or whether that
property is exempt from the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The Department
of Veterans Affairs correctly pointed out that vending machines
on property served by the VCS are exempt by law from the income-
sharing provisions which would otherwise apply. The Department
then argued that, by extension, Congress implicitly provided an
exemption from the Act for all VCS activities. These arguments
are grist for the mill of the federal courts, but time was
running out for Dennis Groshel. The immediate concern was what
would happen to his vending facility in mid-1987 when the
contract was scheduled to expire.
Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act a state licensing agency may
file a complaint with the Secretary of Education if it finds that
a federal property-managing Department, agency, or
instrumentality is violating the law. An arbitration panel is
then appointed to conduct a hearing and decide whether the act
has been violated. The Minnesota agency filed its complaint early
in 1987, but the normal arbitration of such matters can take as
long as two years. In order to protect Dennis Groshel's business
during this period, we advised the state to seek a federal court
injunction which would maintain the existing contract until the
legal dispute was resolved. The Minnesota attorney general
agreed.
An injunction was sought and obtained. This placed Dennis's
livelihood out of harm's way while the legal proceedings moved
back from the federal district court to the arbitration panel.
Panels appointed under the Randolph-Sheppard Act are composed of
three members--one chosen by the state licensing agency, one
chosen by the federal property-managing agency, and a third
member who serves as chairman and is appointed by the other two
members. On this panel I served on behalf of the State of
Minnesota. That was, of course, the official, legal designation;
but I also served on behalf of Dennis Groshel and, in a broader
sense, on behalf of all blind vendors who might someday be
affected by the decision in this case.
To say that the proceedings before this panel were
convoluted would be an understatement. The hearing record was
more extensive than that developed in any previous
Randolph-Sheppard arbitration. Well over one hundred separate
documents were placed before the panel as evidence during the
first of two hearings. As matters evolved, the dispute was
divided into three phases with a temporary (initial) ruling made
in 1988, a supplemental decision made in 1989, and a final
decision made in August of 1991. In all three rulings the panel
unanimously confirmed the view that the Randolph-Sheppard Act
does apply to property served by the VCS.
The purport of this decision was that the state of Minnesota
and Dennis Groshel must be given priority to provide vending
machine services at the St. Cloud medical center. The panel was
divided, however, on several questions relating to the terms of a
continuing agreement between the VCS and the state which would
implement the statutory priority. The most pronounced
disagreement among the panel members revolved around money--would
the VCS be entitled to receive a commission from sales made from
vending machines operated by a blind vendor?
In its initial ruling the panel unanimously declared that
the commission fee of seventeen percent, which had been charged
to Dennis Groshel based on his gross sales, was "an inequity."
The panel then ordered that no commission should be charged by
the VCS until all of the legal questions had been resolved. The
effect of this decision was an immediate doubling of Mr.
Groshel's net income from approximately $13,500 to about $27,000.
The difference was the amount that he had been paying to the VCS.
This is how the case stood until August 14, 1991, when the
panel issued its final decision and award. In a surprising turn
of events, two members--a majority of the panel--reversed
themselves on the commission question and found that a seventeen-
percent commission rate would be acceptable at the St. Cloud
medical center. They expressed the view that this did not violate
the Randolph-Sheppard Act. I disagreed, arguing that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act does not allow the VCS to impose a charge
for providing a vending-facility opportunity to a blind vendor.
To permit a commission to be charged would be inconsistent with
the panel's firm opinion that the Randolph-Sheppard Act applies
to property served by the VCS just as it does to all other
agencies. Still the vote was two to one.
Court action was then necessary to appeal the arbitration
panel's final ruling. In the fall of 1992 the District Court
upheld the panel's unanimous view that the Randolph-Sheppard Act
applies to the medical center and then reversed the panel
majority on its view that a commission could be charged. (See the
February, 1993, issue of the Braille Monitor for the text of this
decision.) The Department of Veterans Affairs appealed this
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. Throughout these proceedings the National Federation of
the Blind continued to represent Dennis Groshel's interests by
formally intervening in the case on his behalf.
On March 11, 1994, the court of appeals ruling was handed
down. It will stand as the final decision in this dispute. The
Department of Veterans Affairs has decided to abandon further
appeals. However, this does not necessarily signal a change of
heart. The decision which has been issued is binding throughout
the states covered by the Eighth Circuit--Arkansas, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota--
and is precedent-setting for the rest of the country.
Whether the Department of Veterans Affairs will
cooperatively follow this decision in Minnesota or in any other
state in the Eighth Circuit is another question altogether. As
for the rest of the country, we can expect the Department of
Veterans Affairs to continue to challenge application of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act to its medical centers in the hope that the
Courts of Appeals in other circuits will reach a different
conclusion. If that happens, the issue may eventually wind up
before the United States Supreme Court, but in the meantime the
decision in Minnesota stands.
The appeals court's decision unambiguously declares that
blind vendors must be given priority to operate vending
facilities at sites controlled by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including the medical centers which are served by the
VCS. Consistent with this priority, the VCS cannot charge a
commission for vending services provided by a blind vendor. By
implication this principle applies to all other agencies of the
federal government as well. The court has upheld the view that
the priority for blind vendors means access to vending facility
opportunities (including free space for conducting business) on
federal property. This has been the position strongly argued by
the National Federation of the Blind at every step of this
lengthy proceeding.
Because of its historic significance and practical value to
all of us, here is the complete text of the court of appeals
ruling:
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
No. 93-1120MN
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
State of Minnesota,
Department of Jobs and Training,
State Services for the Blind and
Visually Handicapped,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Dennis Groshel, Intervenor-Appellee,
v.
Richard W. Riley,
United States Secretary of Education,
U.S. Department of Education,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
James B. Donahoe, Administrator,
Veterans Canteen Service,
Defendants-Appellants
Submitted: October 12, 1993
Filed: March 11, 1994
Before Fagg, Circuit Judge; Ross, Senior Circuit Judge; and
Magill, Circuit Judge
Fagg, Circuit Judge
Following a dispute over the operation of a blind
vendors' vending facility located on United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) property, the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training, State
Services for the Blind and Visually Handicapped (DJT).
The district court held the VA and the Veterans'
Canteen service (collectively VCS) are subject to the
Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections
107-107f (1988). Thus, the district court ruled the VCS
must follow the Act's permit application and approval
regulations. See 34 C.F.R. Part 395 (1993). The
district court also held the VCS cannot charge
commissions on sales from the blind vendor's vending
operation. The federal defendants appeal, and we
affirm.
The Randolph-Sheppard Act provides the framework
for a comprehensive regulatory scheme giving blind
persons licensed by state agencies priority to operate
vending facilities on all federal property. As
authorized by section 107(b), the Secretary of the
Department of Education (DOE) has prescribed detailed
regulations to implement the Act's provisions. Before
establishing the vending facility, the state agency
must submit a permit application that includes desired
terms and conditions of operating the facility. If the
federal department that manages the property approves
the application, the department issues a permit to the
state agency, and a blind person licensed by the state
agency operates the vending facility. The Act also
provides that any limitation on a vending facility's
operation must be approved by the Secretary of the DOE.
In 1977 the VCS and the DJT negotiated an
agreement allowing the DJT to furnish vending services
at the VA Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Rather than operating under a Randolph-Sheppard permit,
the DJT agreed to operate the vending facility under a
renewable contract that required the DJT to pay the VCS
sales commissions from the vending facility. Since 1985
the vending facility has been operated by Dennis
Groshel. Although the DJT renewed the contract several
times, when it was time to renegotiate the contract in
1986, the DJT applied for a permit to operate the
facility under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Adhering to
the regulations governing permits, the DJT's proposed
permit contained a term requiring the VCS to issue the
permit for an indefinite period of time. The proposed
permit also did not provide for the VCS to collect
commissions based on the blind vendor's sales. The VCS
denied the permit application, claiming the VCS was
exempt from the Randolph-Sheppard Act and refusing to
proceed under the Act's permit regulations.
The DJT filed a complaint with the secretary of
the DOE for arbitration. An arbitration panel concluded
the VCS is subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act and
must give priority to blind vendors but held a
negotiated agreement could be substituted for the
permit process. Although the arbitration panel ordered
the parties to negotiate, no agreement could be
reached. The arbitration panel then ordered the parties
to enter a five-year contract for the operation of the
vending facility, subject to renegotiation. The
arbitration panel also concluded the VCS could impose a
seventeen-percent commission on the blind vendor's
gross vending sales.
On review of the arbitration panel's decision, the
district court granted summary judgment to the DJT. The
district court held the arbitrators' decision that the
VCS is subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act compels the
conclusion that the VCS must confer authority to
operate the St. Cloud medical center's vending facility
under the Act's permit regulations. Thus, the district
court held the DJT must apply for a permit that
contains the terms mandated by 34 C.F.R. Section
395.35; and, if the VCS approves the permit, the VCS
must issue the permit for an indefinite time period,
subject only to the blind vendor's failure to comply
with the permit's terms. The district court also
concluded that commission payments to the VCS are a
limitation on the operation of a vending facility that
cannot be imposed without authorization from the
Secretary of the DOE.
Because the Randolph-Sheppard Act's plain language
provides that the Act applies to federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities in control of any
federal property, the Act clearly applies to the VCS.
Although the VCS now concedes that the VCS is subject
to the Act, the VCS argues that its department should
be permitted to go outside the DOE's regulations and
substitute a negotiated vending agreement for the
permit system. We cannot agree. Having conceded that
the Act applies to the VCS, it necessarily follows that
the VCS must comply with the regulatory scheme for
implementing blind vendor operations on VA property.
Neither the Act nor the regulations permit the VCS to
pick and choose which of the Act's governing
regulations to follow. Thus, we agree with the district
court that the VCS must comply with the Randolph-
Sheppard Act's provisions, including the detailed
permit system the secretary of the DOE has chosen to
implement the Act. Because the regulations require that
a permit be issued for an indefinite time period, any
permit issued in this case must contain this term.
We also agree with the district court that in
prohibiting "[a]ny limitation on the . . . operation of
a vending facility" unless justified by the Secretary
of the DOE, the Randolph-Sheppard Act precludes the VCS
from requiring blind vendors to pay commissions on
vending sales without the Secretary's approval.
Although we need not resort to other tools of statutory
construction because the statute is clear, the Act's
legislative history and the Act's related provisions
support our conclusion. When Congress amended the Act
in 1974, Congress was concerned with federal agency
abuses of blind vendors' operations, like forcing blind
vendors to pay commissions. Further, neither the
Randolph-Sheppard Act nor the Veterans' Canteen Service
Act, 38 U.S.C. Sections 7801-7810, authorizes the VCS
to collect commissions from a blind vendor or the state
licensing agency. Although the Randolph-Sheppard Act
authorizes the state licensing agency to set aside
funds from its blind vendors' operations for a limited
list of purposes, the list does not include commission
payments.
Finally, we reject the VCS's contention that the
DOE's permit system interferes with the VCS's mission
to provide articles of merchandise to hospitalized
veterans at reasonable prices and to remain self-
sustaining. Essentially, the VCS contends it should
exercise control over blind vendors' prices and
merchandise selection and charge commissions on the
vendors' sales. Because Congress's intent to apply the
Randolph-Sheppard Act to the VCS is clear from the
plain language of the Act, however, the VCS "must act
in accordance with that intent and [we] need not defer
to the [VCS]." Contrary to the VCS's claim, it is
entirely possible for the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the
Veterans' Canteen Act to co-exist in harmony. Although
the Veterans' Canteen Act empowers the VCS to operate
canteens on VA property, nothing in the Act authorizes
the VCS to exercise this statutory control over
Randolph-Sheppard vendors who also operate on VA
property. Because blind vendors operate vending
facilities under the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the DOE
regulations, the blind vendor's operation is neither a
VCS canteen nor subject to the Veterans' Canteen Act
and the VCS's regulations. Indeed, to allow the VCS to
operate independently of the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
Congress exempted the VCS's vending machines from the
income share provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
Although the Randolph-Sheppard Act does not give
the VCS control over a blind vendor's prices and
merchandise selection or permit the VCS to charge
commissions on the vendor's sales, the Act does not
leave the VCS at the mercy of the DJT. Under the
Randolph-Sheppard Act's permit regulations, the VCS may
negotiate many terms of the DJT's permit to meet the
needs of its medical center patients; and, if
unsuccessful, the VCS may seek a limitation on the
permit's terms from the Secretary of the DOE. Further,
the VCS may deny an unacceptable permit. In addition,
if the VCS justifies to the Secretary that prohibiting
the VCS from charging commissions adversely affects the
interests of the United States, the Secretary may
permit the VCS to charge commissions from the blind
vendor.
Thus, we affirm the district court. A true copy.
Attest:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
__________
There you have the actual text of the decision. The outcome
in this case brings to mind some of the previous attempts made by
others to use the courts for enforcement of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act. The most notable cases were those brought by the
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America (RSVA) and the National
Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB) against the
Department of Defense. The issue involved was a challenge to bids
solicited from fast-food chains to set up shop at military
installations in several states. Rather than painstakingly
following the arbitration procedures required under the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, RSVA and NCSAB attempted to by-pass the
process and obtain a ruling directly from the federal courts.
In response to the suits filed, the plaintiffs got a ruling
from the federal district court for the District of Columbia, but
it was certainly not the ruling they sought or wanted. The court
declined to issue an injunction and declared that bidding for
vending facilities on federal property would not necessarily
violate the priority for blind vendors required by the
Randolph-Sheppard Act. This decision posed an immediate threat to
the entire Randolph-Sheppard program and forced the National
Federation of the Blind to intervene before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
We argued in that case that the correct course of action for
a blind vendor or an agency aggrieved by a violation of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act was to use the arbitration process first,
before going into federal court. We asked that the original
decision be set aside entirely, and the court of appeals agreed.
The threat to the Randolph-Sheppard program was averted. We said
at that time that securing rights and opportunities on behalf of
blind vendors required both patience and competence. These
qualities had not been demonstrated by the plaintiffs in the
Defense Department fast-food case. We wondered aloud whether such
tactics if used in the future would place the Randolph-Sheppard
program in jeopardy again.
The strategy employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs
case demonstrates the patience and competence necessary to assure
the future viability of the Randolph-Sheppard program. In this
instance a successful result has been achieved by means of a true
partnership of the state of Minnesota Department of Jobs and
Training, Dennis Groshel, and the National Federation of the
Blind. We followed every step required by the law without trying
to cut corners. We maintained a constant and firm position.
Everyone's interests were represented, and the result is that we
won.
Opportunities for blind vendors at as many as 170 additional
federal sites could eventually be opened as a result of this case
and similar ones which may follow. Already the state licensing
agency in Maryland is proceeding with an arbitration to secure a
vending facility site at a brand new veterans medical center in
downtown Baltimore. As in Minnesota, we are helping in this
action. The future victories outside the states in the Eighth
Circuit will not necessarily come easily or quickly, but we are
now well on the way. This would not be the case without the
National Federation of the Blind and the excellent cooperation of
officials in the state of Minnesota. There is a lesson here which
the blind have known for a long time and the agencies are
beginning to learn. Hats off to Minnesota officials and the
others who will follow.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
******************************
If you or a friend would like to remember the National
Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing
the following language:
"I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a
District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or
"_____ percent of my net estate" or "The following stocks and
bonds: _____") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of
blind persons."
******************************
[PHOTO: Mr. Maurer stands at the podium with a one hundred dollar bill in his
hand. CAPTION: President Maurer prepares to award the opening door prize at
the 1993 Convention of the National Federation of the Blind.]
WHO WANTS BRAILLE ON THE MONEY?
by Marc Maurer
Recently I learned that the Department of the Treasury was
being asked to consider alterations in the currency to
accommodate the blind. This is, of course, not a new suggestion.
It has been knocking around for decades. Nobody has ever regarded
it as a top priority, and most of the people who have ever
thought about it have dismissed it as both impractical and
undesirable. However, the Department of the Treasury is presently
reviewing proposed changes in the currency because modern
technology has made it easier to counterfeit our money. Inasmuch
as the currency is being redesigned anyway, goes the argument, we
might as well make it accessible to the blind. With this as
background, I was asked to write a statement about the need for
Braille money which could appear in The Numismatist magazine. (A
numismatist is a person who collects rare coins and other unusual
money.) Space for the article was limited to three hundred words.
This is what I sent:
Let Us Earn It: Money
by Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
I have been asked to comment on the question, "Do blind
people want Braille money?" Those blind people who have thought
seriously about the question believe that Braille money would
probably do more harm than good.
Would Braille money ever be useful? Occasionally, yes.
However, there are many other things that would be far more
useful. It would be helpful for trousers, shirts, and socks to
bear some tactile mark to identify the color of the garment. It
would sometimes be helpful to a blind cook for soup cans to be
labeled in Braille. Each of these alterations would be of minute
benefit to the blind; however, the trouble to society of making
the changes outweighs any slight advantage.
There are more significant problems to be faced. Should
schoolbooks be made available in Braille? This is not only
helpful but absolutely vital if blind people are to gain
independence and make substantial contributions to our society.
Part of the disadvantage of producing Braille money is the
negative impression which will result. Having Braille on the
money suggests that blind people are not able to manage in the
world without all kinds of special adaptations. This is not the
case. In fact, the question of real importance to the blind is
not how to identify the money but how to get it in the first
place.
Braille money implies that blind people cannot deal with the
world as it is. This implication suggests that alterations must
be made in everything to accommodate the blind. Those who take
this wrongheaded notion seriously will probably not be willing to
hire the blind. Therefore, it may be that the decision to print
Braille money will contribute to unemployment for blind workers.
The message to be sent is that the ordinary blind person can
compete on terms of equality in the ordinary place of business
with the ordinary sighted person. The members of the National
Federation of the Blind (over 50,000 in 1994) can testify that
our experience shows this to be true.
_______________
After this opinion had been reprinted in The Numismatist
magazine, Mr. Arnoldo Efron, Director of the Monetary Research
Institute in Houston, Texas, responded to the editor of The
Numismatist as follows:
Monetary Research Institute
Houston, Texas
March 12, 1994
The Editor
The Numismatist
Colorado Springs, CO
Dear Sir:
I would like to comment on the statements of Marc Maurer,
president of the National Federation of the Blind, about Braille
currency in the March 1994 edition of The Numismatist, page 324.
As far as I can remember, there is no currency anywhere with
Braille inscriptions. What does exist is currency with special
marks to assist the blind to recognize different denominations.
These marks are raised dots of different shapes for each value,
or different number of similar dots in each denomination.
Incidentally these marks are very helpful to detect counterfeits,
because they are impossible to replicate without very
sophisticated equipment, which is not easily available.
A quick look at the "MRI Bankers' Guide to Foreign
Currency," which we publish, shows that at least thirty-two
nations use these marks. Others, like banks issuing notes in the
British Isles, have no special need, because their notes are of
different sizes for each value.
That there are "more important problems to be faced" does
not wash as a plausible argument against adding identifying marks
to our currency. The cost is minimal and will certainly not
siphon resources from other programs designed to aid the blind. I
cannot imagine that employment of the blind may be affected by
the addition of identifying marks in currency.
Very truly yours,
Arnoldo Efron, Director
___________________
It seemed to me that Mr. Efron was in no position to
interpret the needs of the blind for us. We have had a long
history of having other people tell us what we want. Consequently
I responded with this letter:
March 29, 1994
Mr. Arnoldo Efron, Director
Monetary Research Institute
Houston, Texas
Dear Mr. Efron:
I have received the copy of the letter to the editor of The
Numismatist magazine dated March 12, 1994, which you sent to me.
I regret that you have apparently misunderstood the position of
the National Federation of the Blind.
If doing a thing is a bad idea and if doing it will cost
money, to insist that it be done will be wasteful. We believe
that wasting money is not productive. We believe this is so even
if the amount wasted is not large. Blind people do not need
modified (Braille) money, and to say that it would be helpful to
the blind to produce Braille money is incorrect.
The major problem of blindness is the misunderstanding which
exists about the capacity of blind people. Contrary to the
widely-held belief, blind people can, with proper training and
opportunity, participate in virtually any activity of life along
with their sighted neighbors. The ordinary blind person can do
the ordinary job in the ordinary place of business, and do it
competitively.
There are many barriers to the blind person who is seeking
to gain the training and the opportunity to participate fully in
society. Most of these barriers involve misunderstandings of
blindness and blind people. Often technical schools will not
admit blind students to study mechanics, welding, refrigeration,
and similar trades. Employers sometimes refuse to hire those
blind people who find a way to get such technical training. All
too often the reason for the refusal is the belief that the blind
must be coddled and assisted at virtually every turn. This belief
is false, but it is widely held, nonetheless.
This brings me to the proposal presently being made that
money be altered to accommodate the blind. I think this is a
mistake. I do so because it would serve as a constant
reinforcement of the false idea that blind people cannot compete
in the ordinary world with everybody else. In almost every
pocket, in cash registers, in bank vaults, in dresser drawers,
and under the mattresses there would be this silent but
ubiquitous reminder that changes are required in the world to
accommodate the disadvantage caused by blindness. Because changes
in the currency are not needed to make it handleable by the blind
and because such changes would reinforce the false notion that
the blind are not capable of managing transactions involving
currency, altering the money to suit blind people would be a
disadvantage.
Both in the United States and in Canada, machines to
identify the denomination of bills have been developed. Although
these money identifiers have been available for a number of
years, very few people have purchased them. I believe that they
are not in wide demand because most blind people do not feel that
the need for a money identifier is great enough to justify the
cost. The four money identifiers on the market range in price
from about $300 to about $650. As I have said, no change in the
form of the currency is needed by blind people. But if some way
of identifying the denominations of currency were really
necessary, it would probably be cheaper to provide each blind
person with a money-identifying machine than it would be to alter
the form of currency for the entire nation.
Let me clear up what appears to be a conflict between your
correspondence and mine. The term that I have used in this
letter, "Braille money," does not mean bills with Braille symbols
on them. It does mean that the money has been modified with
raised characters to make it easily identifiable by blind people.
In your letter to the Editor of The Numismatist you say that
there is no Braille money circulating in the world. Some
currencies that are now circulating contain raised symbols. These
currencies with raised markings are frequently referred to as
Braille money.
I would add one final point. The blind of the United States
do not object to bills of different sizes or to bills with raised
markings if it has been determined by the Department of the
Treasury that this will be beneficial for the country as a whole.
Coins are already of different sizes, and they have identifiable
tactile markings. However, we do object to the creation of a
currency which has been modified specifically to accommodate the
blind. If it is a good idea for the country to have a currency
which consists of bills of various sizes or which contains
tactile markings for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting,
the blind will be happy to use it. In fact, we will use whatever
currency is developed. However, we strongly object to having a
specialized currency developed in our name, which is circulated
for the ostensible purpose of helping us because of our "special
needs." We do not wish to have you interpret our needs for us. We
are perfectly able to articulate our needs for ourselves.
Blind people are competent to handle the currency in
circulation as it now exists. For you and others to suggest that
changes in the currency are necessary to meet a need which you
believe that blind people have implies that we cannot handle the
currency which is presently being used. This assertion is simply
not the case.
Very truly yours,
Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
cc:The Editor, The Numismatist
Mr. Peter H. Daly, Director
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Department of the Treasury
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WAGE PROTECTION FOR BLIND WORKERS:
THE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE BEGINS AGAIN
by Barbara Pierce
On Wednesday, July 7, the delegates to the 1993 Convention
of the National Federation of the Blind turned their attention to
the problem of minimum wage protection for blind sheltered shop
employees. Several shop officials told the audience why their
management teams had decided to begin paying the minimum wage to
blind workers and described the positive results the decision had
brought about. Donald Elisburg, a labor lawyer who has
successfully worked with the Federation on two cases to represent
blind workers who had been deprived of their rights said plainly
that, as it is now structured, the Department of Labor's Wage and
Hour Division, which he himself oversaw, is incapable of
administering the Fair Labor Standards Act fairly for the
workers. Finally, Congressman Austin Murphy, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Labor Standards, Occupational Health and Safety
of the Committee on Education and Labor, assured delegates that
the time had come to do something about this problem and that he
was prepared to have hearings conducted on the matter before his
subcommittee. These presentations appeared in the December, 1993,
issue of the Braille Monitor.
At this year's Washington Seminar one of the issues
discussed with Senators, Members of the House, and staff people
was the possibility of having legislation introduced that would
eliminate blindness as a disability justifying the Department of
Labor (DOL) in issuing a certificate of exemption from paying the
minimum wage to the worker. We were not arguing that no blind
sheltered shop worker should receive less than the minimum wage;
there are undoubtedly blind workers whose other disabilities
prevent them from working at competitive rates. But the data we
have gathered clearly demonstrates that blindness in and of
itself does not prevent a worker from producing at competitive
rates.
Several Members of the House have expressed interest in
introducing such legislation, and at this writing (in late March)
one bill, H.R. 3966, has already been introduced by Congressman
James Traficant of Ohio, and other bills are being considered. On
March 16, 1994, Congressman Austin Murphy made good his promise
to the organized blind when the Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Occupational Health and Safety conducted a hearing on H.R. 3966.
Four people testified: James Gashel, Director of Governmental
Affairs of the National Federation of the Blind; Colleen Haslam,
an employee at Utah Industries for the Blind; Donald Elisburg, an
attorney specializing in labor law and Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Employment Standards in the Carter Administration; and
Patricia Beattie, Director of Legislative Affairs for National
Industries for the Blind, the not-for-profit organization of
sheltered workshops for the blind that parcels out federal
contracts to its members and takes a percentage off the top for
the service. Mr. Gashel laid out the case for paying blind
workers at least the minimum wage. Ms. Haslam described her
personal experience in working competitively for much less than
the minimum wage. Mr. Elisburg explained why the current system
is not working and cannot be made to work fairly for workers. And
finally Ms. Beattie argued the National Industries for the Blind
position. Unfortunately for the impact of her remarks, her
arguments had already been refuted before she made her
presentation. What follows are the texts of the comments made on
March 16.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: James Gashel stands at podium. CAPTION: James Gashel]
TESTIMONY OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
by James Gashel
Before the Subcommittee on Labor Standards
Occupational Health and Safety
Committee on Education and Labor
United States House of Representatives
Testimony of the National Federation of the Blind
Washington, D.C.
March 16, 1994
Mr. Chairman, my name is James Gashel. I am the Director of
Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind. My
address is 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230;
telephone (410) 659-9314. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
this morning on the subminimum wage policy of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as it applies to blind or visually impaired
workers. No group of employees in American industry deserves your
attention more.
The National Federation of the Blind was founded in 1940 on
the principles of security, equality, and opportunity for all
blind people. The Federation has been organized to serve as a
vehicle of self-expression and collective action by the blind.
All of our leaders and the vast majority of our members are
blind. Blind people join the National Federation through local
chapters and state affiliates located in all fifty states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. There are local chapters
of the Federation in most sizable population areas in the United
States.
This morning you are examining the application of section
14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to blind employees, many of
whom are among the broadly based membership of the National
Federation of the Blind. We represent the collective voice of
these workers in asking Congress to amend the law so that
impaired vision or blindness cannot be used as the basis for
paying anyone below the federal minimum wage. Mr. Chairman, it is
our considered opinion that the present policy of section 14(c)
is wrong because it does not result in fairly compensating blind
people for the work which they perform. In the testimony which
follows I will explain why this is so.
First I will provide some background data which should be
helpful in considering the impact and advisability of a policy
change. Any employer can potentially be exempted from paying the
minimum wage in hiring disabled or blind workers. The fact is,
however, that industries which have often been referred to as
"sheltered workshops" are essentially the only employers who use
the subminimum wage scheme. This is certainly true in the case of
blind people. The National Federation of the Blind is unaware of
a work situation in competitive industry where an employee who is
blind is being paid anything less than the minimum wage.
As a general proposition employers in the open market have
accepted the minimum wage as a cost of doing business. Most
companies can readily see that operating under a subminimum wage
system is false economy. The cost of administering a piece-rate
system merely to justify paying one or a handful of employees
below the minimum wage would almost certainly be greater than
simply paying them the difference between their so-called earned
wage and the minimum. Besides, most employers would rather pay
the minimum wage than to risk the possibility of adverse
publicity or having charges brought against them under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It is also a fact that
most employers do not want to underpay blind people just to save
what would amount to pocket change as a percentage of their total
labor costs.
We can assume, therefore, that sheltered workshops are the
sole beneficiaries of the present subminimum wage policy. The
workshops that employ blind people are affiliated in an umbrella
group known as National Industries for the Blind (NIB). There are
roughly eighty NIB affiliated agencies in the U.S. The blind work
force is slightly in excess of 6,000. Most of these individuals
are assigned to perform direct labor tasks. Their average wage is
approximately $4.97 an hour. It is estimated that sixty-seven
percent of these workers are already paid at least the minimum
wage or higher, leaving about 2,000 (or thirty-three percent) who
are not.
As many as twenty-three NIB affiliates have abandoned the
subminimum wage policy altogether. The list of those paying at
least the minimum wage and higher includes the Columbia
Lighthouse for the Blind in Washington, D.C.; Blind Industries
and Services of Maryland; all industries for the blind (both
public and private) in the state of Kansas; the Chicago
Lighthouse for the Blind; the Lighthouse for the Blind of
Houston; New Mexico Industries for the Blind; and several more.
At least as far as wages are concerned, blind people and sighted
people work in these facilities on a level playing field. All of
the above mentioned agencies once paid subminimum wages but no
longer do so as a matter of policy.
The question is whether Congress should put an end to paying
blind workers subminimum wages in this industry. We answer that
question, Mr. Chairman, with a resounding "yes." The practice
should not be continued merely because it has been the way of
doing business in these workshops for more than fifty years. On
its face, Section 14(c) appears to be quite simple and arguably
quite fair, but both the simplicity and the fairness are
deceptive. Workers are supposed to be paid on the basis of
productivity. That may be hard to quarrel with in the abstract,
but the factory floor is not abstract; it is the real world.
If the policy of Section 14(c) is really as sound as its
proponents assert, then the standard--productivity-based pay with
no actual floor--should be good enough for all American workers.
The fact is that no class of workers, other than those we are
discussing here today, is subject to such a rigorous and in fact
costly evaluation of their work moment by moment, day in and day
out. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if productivity-based, piece-
rate pay were the industry standard and there were in fact no
floor, the same sighted employees who are now paid above the
minimum wage would quickly become subminimum wage employees in
many if not most instances.
I last appeared before this subcommittee in 1985 when a bill
to streamline the process for issuing subminimum wage
certificates was being considered. You expressed concern that the
bill, a version of which was enacted a year later, could lead to
wage exploitation. The Department of Labor witness testified that
any wage above zero would be approved under the bill. When that
measure became law, you agreed with us and insisted upon certain
procedural safeguards. I am here to tell you that the safeguards
are not working.
Our experience with the law as amended in 1986 demonstrates
that your cautionary fears were well-founded. Those who are
required to comply with the law by fairly determining wages are
also empowered to gather all of the facts and make all of the
decisions which end up justifying their determinations. The blind
workers have absolutely no say in the matter. They can challenge
the subminimum wage in a hearing, but they are almost certain to
lose hands down if the documentation requirements have been met.
We have prevailed in two substantial cases, but only because of
faulty documentation. The bias of the law, which gives a nod to
management at every turn, ties our hands in obtaining truly fair
treatment for blind workers.
As an alternative to the present law, we have proposed that
blindness or impaired vision should not be used as the basis for
authorizing a subminimum wage. Genuine work disabilities could be
the basis, but blindness without an actual work disability should
not be used. Congressman Traficant has proposed specific
legislation in the form of H. R. 3966 for this purpose, entitled
the "Blind Workers' Wage Equity Act." If enacted, Mr. Traficant's
bill would not affect section 14(c) in any way other than to
clarify that impaired vision or blindness could not be used to
authorize subminimum wages. The terms "impaired vision" and
"blindness" are defined in his bill.
You should expect that this bill will attract its share of
opponents as well as proponents. Here are some of the questions
which will most certainly arise. A response is provided to each.
The points of contention are strikingly similar to the issues
debated in raising the minimum wage in general. Those who favor
the change tend to understand these issues from the working
person's point of view. Those who oppose the change tend to
believe that management will be fair and can best determine pay
rates.
QUESTION: Will blind people lose their jobs?
ANSWER: Job loss because of a minimum wage requirement is
not likely. It can generally be said that the agencies which pay
subminimum wages to blind people are a distinct group of
workshops. As a condition for their receipt of government
contracts, it is necessary that seventy-five percent of the
direct labor must be performed by workers who are blind.
Therefore, the retention of jobs is virtually guaranteed as long
as contracts are available under the federal Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Act and state purchasing laws of a similar nature.
QUESTION: If the subminimum wage is based on productivity,
is there really a pay inequity?
ANSWER: The figures tell the story. During fiscal year
1992--the latest year for which figures are published--gross
sales from industries affiliated with NIB were $302.1 million.
Wages and fringe benefits were about $49 million or sixteen
percent of gross sales. But an examination of labor statistics
would show that labor costs as a percentage of gross sales in
competitive industries comparable to the NIB shops normally
exceed twenty percent and may often approach thirty percent.
Therefore, it is clear that blind workers are not receiving their
fair share of the proceeds resulting from their labor.
QUESTION: Is it possible to develop a subminimum wage policy
which would treat blind workers fairly?
ANSWER: As long as employers control factors such as work
flow, productivity measures, production methods, prevailing wage
determinations, commensurate wages, and the necessary
justifications involved, the subminimum wage pay scheme will
never be fair to blind people. It would not be practical to have
an outside entity such as the Department of Labor assigned to
administer or oversee subminimum wage pay rates at each work
site. Besides, who would foot the bill for such a plan? Under the
circumstances, workers who are particularly productive, such as
the blind as a group, should be excluded from subminimum wages
altogether. This is the only truly fair option available.
QUESTION: Can workshops afford the difference between the
subminimum wages currently paid and the guarantee of no lower
than the minimum wage for blind workers?
ANSWER: Workshops can certainly afford to pay higher wages
if faced with an outside mandate to do so. Those that have gone
to a minimum wage guarantee voluntarily have demonstrated that
cost need not be an issue. The belief that the cost is
prohibitive ignores the expense of justifying every worker's
productivity and pay rate as management is supposed to do under
the present law. Given the size of most workshops in the NIB
system and the existing pay rates already in effect, additional
labor costs resulting from the minimum wage would likely run to
an average of around $30,000 per plant per year. Most of that
cost would be offset by scrapping the administrative burden in
determining the productivity of each worker, piece rates for each
job, prevailing wages for each job, and the correct commensurate
wage to be paid in each case.
Most workshops are not on the verge of financial collapse.
They are units of larger agencies. Unlike businesses of
comparable size and scope they do not pay taxes, and they have a
variety of funding sources beyond the revenue generated from
production. Revenue sources include donations from civic
organizations and the public, fees for training and evaluation
services paid to workshops by other public and private agencies,
facilities and staffing grants, block-grant funding for workshops
provided by state agencies, and direct wage subsidy
appropriations granted under state law in some instances. These
revenue sources are not available to private businesses, which
are also required to pay higher wages.
QUESTION: Will a disincentive result if less productive and
more productive workers are paid comparable wages?
ANSWER: The subminimum wage is the greatest disincentive of
all. Workers know when their labor is not valued. They tend to
view the minimum wage as a benchmark. Imagine the dispirited
feeling that can result from working day after day, year after
year, only to find that even the minimum wage is an elusive goal.
This is not an uncommon experience. Now compare that situation
with the pride which workers share when management declares that
everyone, blind and sighted alike, will be paid at least the
minimum wage. It is often reported that productivity dramatically
increases when such actions are taken. The fact is that most
employees are not cheap-minded or selfish. They view the minimum
wage as a form of base pay to which everyone is entitled by
virtue of working.
QUESTION: Will the minimum wage interfere with training and
rehabilitation goals of sheltered workshops?
ANSWER: Training and rehabilitation may be stated goals of
workshops, but production motives predominate. The National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) has consistently ruled since 1976 that
workshops in the NIB system are principally driven by business
motives. Therefore, the Board has consistently taken jurisdiction
over workshops in this industry. The courts have upheld the Board
in the cases presented. Besides, accomplishment of training goals
is not necessarily impaired by adopting more acceptable, standard
pay prac
tices. Workshops must come to understand that, when they
are conducting themselves as factories--when they are actually
producing goods for sale in commerce--their workers must be paid
for their labor. Rehabilitation does not justify exploitation and
should not be used to do so.
QUESTION: Will blind workers lose income-conditional
benefits from Social Security (including medical benefits) if
they are paid at least the minimum wage?
ANSWER: No. It is just that simple. Income guidelines for
both the Social Security Disability Insurance and the
Supplemental Security Income programs are high enough that
payment at the level of the minimum wage, working full-time, does
not prevent eligibility for either the cash or the medical
assistance benefits involved. Besides, keeping wages low so
employees can qualify for public benefits does not help the
workers; it helps management's bottom line. Let us not be fooled.
QUESTION: Why should blind people be singled out for
exclusion from the subminimum wage policy?
ANSWER: As a group blind people have already distinguished
themselves by demonstrating comparatively high productivity. Even
under the present law average pay for blind workers in the NIB
system exceeds the minimum wage. It should now be recognized that
management, too, bears a responsibility for helping production
employees to maximize their productive capacities. Establishing
the minimum wage as a floor would be a realistic way of doing
this. If managers were required to pay at least a certain wage
rather than letting compensation decrease with lower
productivity, there would be an incentive for them to get as much
work as possible out of the work force. This is true in private
industry, and the same concept would work just as well for blind
people in sheltered workshops.
Mr. Chairman, these are the major questions. It should be
emphasized that the minimum wage is not a panacea. It will
certainly improve blind workers' wages, but even then they will
still lag far behind industry standards. For example, the average
hourly wage paid to blind people in the NIB system was $4.97
during fiscal year 1992. But labor wages in light manufacturing
nationwide are reported to average close to $9.50 an hour
(according to the Monthly Labor Review, published in January,
1994). There is no question that moving to the minimum wage will
help to address this imbalance but certainly not eliminate it.
Other solutions, such as increased efforts to establish labor
union representation for blind workers, will have to be
emphasized along with the minimum wage.
The hearing you are holding today is a good new beginning in
the examination by the Congress of this particular subminimum
wage issue. Since 1938, Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in
our understanding of equitable employment policies affecting
persons with disabilities. It is truly shocking that in section
14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act we have this remaining
vestige of the old employment policy still hanging around.
I will leave you with this thought, Mr. Chairman: in the
final analysis one must decide what position to adopt on this
issue--whether to favor a change or not--by applying the same
basic principles that would be used if the workers involved were
not blind. Why is it not reasonable for the Congress to determine
a minimum standard of pay for blind people in sheltered
workshops? The productivity and piece-rate scheme is not a
standard. It is deceptive in its application and unfair in its
impact. Blind people deserve more. We must see that they have
more. On behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, I thank
you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Colleen Haslam]
A SHELTERED WORKSHOP WORKER SPEAKS
By Colleen Haslam
From the Editor: Colleen Haslam is an employee at Utah
Industries for the Blind in Salt Lake. This is what she had to
say:
Before the Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Occupational Health and Safety
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
Statement of Colleen Haslam
March 16, 1994
Mr. Chairman, my name is Colleen Haslam, and my address is
1041 Yale Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105.
I want to start off by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and the
committee for giving me the opportunity to testify before you
today. I have come here to tell you a story of unfairness and
inequality for blind industrial workers like myself. I want to
tell you my own personal story of not being able to earn the
minimum wage even after fourteen years of working for the Utah
Industries for the Blind (UIB). As Chairperson of UIB's Workshop
Employees Committee, I also represent the views of my fellow
blind workers. The bottom line is that we must change the Fair
Labor Standards Act so that blind workers like myself can be
guaranteed the minimum wage. The current system is both
unmanageable and very unfair to blind workshop employees.
I began working for UIB in October of 1980. At that time I
disassembled telephones so that the parts could be used for other
purposes. For that work, I received an hourly pay of $2.10 at a
time when the minimum wage stood at $3.35 an hour.
Then I began a job in the front office. There I handled a
variety of general office duties. I waited on customers, answered
phones, handled accounts receivable, ordered supplies, and did
whatever else was necessary. For my labor I received $3.15 an
hour for five years. In case you are keeping track, a wage of
$3.15 an hour translates into a whopping $6,552.00 a year.
It is now my understanding that the law requires the
workshop to determine the prevailing wage in the community for
the job in question. Using the prevailing wage, the shop can then
set pay rates based on a worker's productivity. In my case I am
sure that the workshop never attempted to determine what general
office workers received in Salt Lake City. More important, the
workshop never informed me that I had a right to question the
wage that they paid me, let alone understand the basis for it. I
am also sure that the workshop did not inform any of the other
workers of their rights under the law. These things are just not
discussed by management. It is all very secretive.
In 1986 the workshop moved me to a new job. I began working
on the sewing machine, sewing together laundry bags for the
military. Over the years we have done other projects for the
military. For example, we assembled the camouflage field pack
covers for Desert Storm. When I started sewing, I felt like I was
being thrown to the wolves. The workshop only gave me a minimal
amount of training on the machine. Basically, I was told, "Here's
the machine; here's the material; now get to work." Again, I only
earned a base pay of $3.15 an hour for my work. Eight years later
I was only earning $3.75 an hour before UIB shut down for
reorganization early this year. Again, for those of you who are
keeping track, $3.75 an hour translates into a princely yearly
wage of $7,800.
At UIB we work on a piece-rate system. Therefore, it is
possible to earn more than your base pay, but it is not very
probable you will do so. For example, over the years the workshop
has given me one task where I earned up to $6.43 an hour. This
work, however, has always been very scarce. During an average
year I would only receive about a week's worth of that high-
paying work.
My pay and productivity are also greatly affected by the
workshop's inefficiency. We are supposed to work as hard as we
can in order to increase our productivity and thereby receive
a higher wage, but there are often situations in which there is
no work for us to do. When this happens, my productivity goes
down the drain, and I lose money in the process. During an
average week I would have up to four or five hours of downtime,
time that I could have used to earn a higher wage. By not giving
me much of the high-wage work and with all the downtime, it is no
wonder I have never earned above $3.75 an hour as my base pay.
You see, in order to raise your base pay, you would have to
complete three straight months of work at the higher piece rate.
With downtime and lack of profitable work, it was almost
impossible to raise your base rate.
My fellow workshop employees have faced similar problems. At
the time when we shut down early this year, there were a total of
sixty-two employees working in the shop. Forty-seven of us were
blind, and fifteen were sighted. By law all the sighted workers
received at least the minimum wage. I know for a fact that the
last two sighted workers we hired started at $5.00 an hour. Out
of the forty-seven blind workers, only five received wages above
the minimum. In fact, the blind workers generally started at a
base pay of $1.71 an hour. On our wage scoreboard, a wage of
$1.71 an hour equals $3,556.80 a year. How can anyone call this
situation fair? I know of several cases where a blind worker and
a sighted worker were doing the same job. The sighted workers
received at least the minimum wage, but the blind workers earned
subminimum wages. This was true even though the blind workers in
question were more productive.
I have mentioned the reorganization of our workshop. Part of
this has involved bringing in new management. In the process it
was discovered that pay rates for blind workers had not been
determined as required by law. We were being underpaid, and the
situation had gone on for many years. Unfortunately, the law has
a two-year limit on repayment on past-due wages. Even so, the UIB
blind workers received a total of $55,000 in back pay. Not all of
us have received this compensation, but I do not understand why.
One reason might be that some of the UIB workers had been
hired at pay rates below the $1.71 an hour starting base pay,
which I mentioned. Many of these workers started at eighty-five
cents an hour. These are the ones who are now receiving the past-
due compensation. I do not know if they are being compensated for
the difference between eighty-five cents an hour and the minimum
wage or if the compensation is still based on a subminimum wage.
I suspect it is a subminimum wage. Workers are not told the
facts. If the two-year limit did not apply, it is clear to me
that the UIB blind workers would be owed hundreds of thousands of
dollars not paid to them.
It is my understanding that sheltered workshops are also
supposed to provide rehabilitation services. Theoretically
sheltered workshops are supposed to be a source of temporary
employment, but at the same time these shops should be giving us
training and teaching us the skills necessary to get a job in the
competitive job market. All of us in the workshop would jump at
such an opportunity. The fact is, however, that during my
fourteen years at the workshop there have been no training
opportunities whatsoever that would have helped me or any other
blind worker secure competitive employment. For fourteen years I
have been working at subminimum wages with virtually no
opportunity to move into the regular job market.
You might ask me why I put up with it all, and that is a
fair question. When I became legally blind in 1979, I wanted to
get back to work. Whenever I went for interviews, the employers
would tell me that they thought I had a good resume and that I
had good experience, but once they found out that I was blind,
they wanted nothing more to do with me. So for me and the five
thousand other blind sheltered workshop employees across this
country these industries are our only opportunity for employment.
Even though the workshop is supposed to help us get better jobs
by providing training to us, I have never seen any evidence of
such training at UIB.
The best evidence that the current system is unfair and not
proper for our times is the fact that the Utah Industries for the
Blind has decided to make a major change in policy. When the
workshop completely reopens later this month, every blind
employee will receive at least the minimum wage. I want to
applaud UIB's new management for doing the right thing by paying
every blind worker at least the minimum wage. It is my
understanding that the workshop management believes that they
will actually save money and make greater profits by adopting the
minimum wage.
Before we reorganized, the workshop had at least one full-
time person managing the piece-rate system. Management was
spending thousands upon thousands of dollars a year just to
determine our productivity. Now they will not have to waste so
much money each year trying to figure out whether a given blind
worker should be paid five cents an hour more or five cents an
hour less. This is nickel-and-dime management, and it just
doesn't make any sense. The full-time person who spent all of his
time managing the piece-rate system will now concentrate his
efforts on marketing our products. This approach makes much more
sense to me. I think that the workshop will also find that our
productivity will increase. It is hard to get out of bed each
morning knowing that your fellow workers who are sighted will
make at least $4.25 an hour and that blind workers will earn only
$1.71 an hour. Now at least the playing field will be more level.
Almost four years ago Congress passed the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA). Now I may not be a lawyer, but I
understand enough to know that the ADA guarantees individuals
with disabilities, like myself, equality in our society. All I
know is that the situation in Utah has not been equal for blind
workers. Even though our situation is changing, thousands of
blind workers across the country still face these unfair
conditions. The old system is both unmanageable and incredibly
unfair; it is time for it to go. The ADA may say that I have
equal rights, but for those of us who labor at subminimum wages
it sure doesn't seem like we have equality. By passing the Blind
Workers' Wage Equity Act, we can go a long way in making
conditions better for blind workers.
True wage equity would give blind workers the opportunity to
earn a decent wage. It would also recognize that our work is
worth just as much as any sighted person's work. We have
demonstrated over and over again that blindness alone does not
affect our productivity. Lack of training, an unmanageable
system, and unfair wages do. Please pass the Blind Workers' Wage
Equity Act so that blind employees across this country will come
one step closer to true equality in our society. I want to
conclude by again thanking you for the opportunity to testify
today.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Donald Elisburg]
TESTIMONY OF A LABOR LAWYER
by Donald Elisburg
From the Editor: In the Carter Administration Donald
Elisburg served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment
Standards. In that capacity he oversaw the Wage and Hour
Division, which enforced the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. In recent years he has worked with the National
Federation of the Blind on several important cases concerning the
rights of blind sheltered shop workers. Here is what he had to
say:
Before the Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Occupational Health and Safety
March 16, 1994
Testimony of Donald Elisburg
Dear Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Donald Elisburg, and I am an attorney in
Washington, D.C. I have more than thirty years' experience with
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a Department of Labor
attorney, Senate staff member, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Employment Standards, and private practitioner. While Assistant
Secretary, I also served for extensive periods of time as acting
wage and hour administrator. During all of this period, I have
had extensive experience with Section 14(c) of the FLSA, relating
to the special provisions for sheltered workshops.
Other witnesses in this hearing from the National Federation
of the Blind are presenting testimony concerning the basic
economic and moral problems associated with the continued
existence of sheltered workshop wage exceptions for blind
workers.
The purpose of my testimony today is to express my personal
views to the Committee that the present system for challenging
workshop work abuses afforded workers through Section 14(c)(5),
as amended in 1986, is a study in futility. I base my remarks on
my experiences as an attorney for a number of sheltered workshop
employees in one action brought under Section 14(c)(5) in
Lubbock, Texas, in 1988 and in another action brought in Buffalo,
New York, in 1991.
The simple fact is that Congress enacted provisions designed
to help these workers pursue wage violation claims and, for
reasons I am about to discuss, these provisions are not only not
helpful, they are useless.
First, Section 14(c)(5)(A) of the Act requires that the
process be initiated by petitioning the Secretary of Labor to
review the special minimum wage. The petition must be filed by
the employee, the employee's parent, or guardian. This lack of
class action is a real showstopper. Basically the individual
workers who are required to sign a complaint are put at
tremendous risk of conflict with their employers under difficult
employment circumstances. For example, many of these workers
receive transportation from the workshop or have other benefits
that are dependent on the goodwill of the employer. The
Department of Labor's ability to protect these workers from
reprisal is extremely limited, particularly when the retaliation
is in the form of poor assignments or other subtle actions. If
the Department of Labor were to proceed on behalf of these
workers, the matter would be treated as a class action.
Section 14(c)(5)(B) of the statute further requires that
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings be held within a thirty-
day timeframe. The notion that an individual can file a claim
with the Secretary of Labor and that such a claim will be acted
upon promptly is an illusion. It takes at least a month to get
the case calendared with a judge, and then it can be months
before a hearing can be properly set. This is particularly true
if the proceeding will involve documents, discovery, and/or
witnesses. The notion that the petitioners and the employers will
show up at a hearing with boxes of records and experts and the
judge will sort it out like a stamp collection within thirty days
is not the real world. In point of fact, the Department of Labor
administrative law system has detailed rules on discovery, pre-
trial conferences, and other procedural matters. Unfortunately
the commensurate wage issues cannot be handled like traffic court
with simple testimony. Using my cases as examples, the Texas case
took fifteen months to bring to closure, and the New York case
took nine months.
Section 14(c)(5)(B) of the Act also places the burden upon
the sheltered workshop to come forward and establish that it has
done its studies properly and that it can defend the exemption
from the minimum wage afforded under Section 14(c). There are
several major problems with this notion. The principal problem we
found in the two cases I handled was that the sheltered workshop
personnel and management had little understanding of the rules;
the records they had were virtually non-existent to support the
exemption; and they had little economic justification for the
wage scales they set. To make matters worse, it was also clear
during the litigation of these cases that the Administrative Law
Judges did not fully understand or accept the notion that the
employer had the burden of establishing the data to defend the
exemptions claimed. Such confusion would impact on the judge's
decision based on Section (5)(D)(i) and (ii) concerning
productivity.
Moreover, the role of the Department of Labor as the ALJ's
advisor on the issues presented in (5)(C) and (D) is also not
clear. In both of my cases it became necessary for me to provide
the ALJ with extensive evidence and expert testimony that
reflected the prevailing wage and job data for the area. It also
became my responsibility to provide the ALJ with a separate
analysis of the time and motion studies and other information
upon which each worker's wages were allegedly based in order to
prosecute the claims properly on behalf of these workers. The
Department of Labor's role as advisor to the ALJ was not
comfortable to me or, probably, to the Department. It also was
not consistent. In the preliminary hearing on our Buffalo case
the Department was only "present."
In a workshop that does not have adequate record-keeping
arrangements or properly trained assistants or supervisors, it is
extremely difficult to determine actual production. In the
absence of adequate records, the worker's claim must be
established by that worker's testimony of hours worked and wages
paid on a piecework basis. The fact is that these workers have
almost no way of keeping separate counts of pieces produced or of
hours worked and are almost completely dependent upon the
assistance of sighted workers and supervisors.
In short, as you review each element of the claims process,
you will see the impossible hurdles that are placed before each
worker if he or she wishes to pursue a wage violation claim.
Alternatively, in one of the cases we determined that the
most effective way to deal with the violations was to file a
complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor for an investigation.
That too was a Catch-22, because at the end of that investigation
it was still extremely difficult to get the Department of Labor's
investigation results before the ALJ, even though they reflected
massive violations.
The situation with the two cases I handled was further
complicated when in the first case the workshop declared
bankruptcy just before the hearing under Section 14(B), and in
the second case the workshop announced its intention simply to go
into another business after the proceeding. In the bankruptcy
case only a desire on the part of several workshop board members
to avoid further bad publicity led to a settlement of
substantially less than the amounts due. We finally settled
because, while substantially less than penalties found, the
settled amount was also substantially more than these workers
could have collected had the bankruptcy claims gone to trial.
Bankruptcy laws do not protect workers beyond ninety days. In the
second case the workers received substantial payments but were
faced with a loss of jobs.
Let me also make another serious procedural point: it is
simply not possible for individuals to pursue this type of
economic claim without help. It is virtually impossible to
proceed without the aid of an expert economist and experts in
time and motion study and related issues. The Department of Labor
does not provide the claimants with this level of help. The
sheltered workshops, using my two cases as an example, don't have
the data. The reality, therefore, is that the claimants have to
resort to legal assistance with their wage violation claims.
This is complicated because the regulation states that
Section 14(c)(5) makes no provision for attorney fees. What this
means is that, as currently drafted, Congress has created a law
that is not speedy, is extremely technical, permits below-minimum
wages to be paid to people whose only disability is that they are
blind, and insists that individuals pursue a claim on their own
behalf and then must pay legal fees even if the employer is found
to be at fault. Understand, I represented people who were
improperly being permitted to be paid $2.05 per hour. In both of
my cases violations were uncovered. Workers were being cheated.
How in good conscience can we ask these workers also to foot the
legal bill?
The main customer for products made at these workshops is
the U.S. Government. In Texas it is the government of the United
States that is paying $2.05 per hour to workers producing goods
for the Department of Defense. It does not seem right that the
military used materials made at a sheltered workshop during
Operation Desert Storm that were produced by workers making $2.05
per hour. And it is particularly difficult to know that many of
these workers had been earning three or four times that rate when
they had employment in the aerospace industry or other
manufacturing industries.
I do not believe that the government of the United States
should be permitted to purchase goods produced by workers at a
rate below the minimum wage. I particularly do not believe that
such a program should be undertaken where it is clear that the
majority of the workers who are blind could well work in other
employment and for sure have every reason to be paid the minimum
wage. And I firmly believe that it is not possible for the
government to enforce the existing provisions of Section 14(c)
relating to economic wage determinations and individual rate
measurements so as to avoid substantial abuse.
I would like to make several other observations about the
process. Early in my representation of the Lubbock workers, I
sought help from the Committee for Purchase from the Blind.
However, I found in my discussions little interest in dealing
with the fundamental problems of low-wage workers in these
workshops. It seemed to me that this Committee does not
understand that its task is to protect workers. Instead it seemed
to me that they are much more concerned about protecting the
National Industries for the Blind or the federal agencies. I was
also not very comforted by the National Industries for the Blind.
They are billed as the experts in determining the commensurate
wage system. My perception is that they see the workshop as their
client, not the workers.
To summarize, I do not believe that the provisions of
Section 14(c)(5) can be enforced by any agency, and certainly not
by individual claimants forced to use a complex legal process
without attorneys. To suggest that a worker earning $2.05 per
hour can afford legal counsel is likewise ludicrous, and to
suggest that organizations such as the National Federation of the
Blind should continue to subsidize legal counsel in order to
obtain wage benefits due workers at sheltered workshops is
likewise unrealistic.
If these sheltered workshop wages are to be continued, I
suggest at least the following provisions:
1. All workers shall be paid not less than the minimum wage.
2. If a worker is paid a prevailing wage, that wage should not
go lower than the minimum.
3. Petitions for review for these proceedings should permit
workers to bring a class action.
4. The rules of proceeding should consider the levels of proof
that will be required. The role of the Wage and Hour
Division should be clarified.
5. There should be provisions for attorneys' fees and costs
since these workers simply cannot proceed on their own.
This committee is to be commended for addressing this
important issue. We have U.S. workers whom we thought we
were protecting in the workplace, but the reality is that we
have made matters worse for them. The time to correct the
problem is now, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TESTIMONY BY NATIONAL INDUSTRIES
FOR THE BLIND
by Patricia M. Beattie
From the Editor: Patricia Beattie is the Director of
Legislative Affairs for the National Industries for the Blind.
Here is her testimony:
Testimony of
National Industries for the Blind (NIB)
and
General Council of Workshops for the Blind (GCWB)
before the
Labor Standards, Occupational Health and Safety Subcommittee
Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives
March 16, 1994
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I
am Patricia Beattie, Director of Legislative Affairs at National
Industries for the Blind. This morning I have the privilege of
representing both NIB and the General Council of Workshops for
the Blind (GCWB).
NIB is designated by the Presidentially-appointed Committee
for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled as
the central nonprofit agency to represent state and nonprofit
agencies that participate in the program of the Javits-Wagner-
O'Day Act. NIB is a 501(c)(3) organization which was incorporated
in 1938. One of our primary responsibilities is to equitably
distribute contracts from the federal government for products and
services among qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind.
Currently eighty-two agencies, which operate one hundred
employment facilities, are associated with NIB.
The General Council is an unincorporated membership
organization of those agencies which are associated with National
Industries for the Blind. The General Council membership is
extremely diverse. Some are primarily employment facilities,
while others are providers of comprehensive services. Some of the
services provided in addition to employment include:
Basic rehabilitation services
Technology training
Work preparation services
Infant and parent training
Transportation for work and other purposes
Placement in the business sector, and
Independent living for older blind people.
My purpose here today is to discuss the impact of minimum
wage requirements on people who are blind or visually impaired.
As I do that, I ask that the Subcommittee keep in mind that it is
estimated that 65 to 70 percent of all working-age blind people
still do not have a job. Barriers to more employment include:
Discrimination despite the Americans with Disabilities Act
Social Security disincentives
Lack of access to technology and personal assistance
And inadequate transportation.
Now let me directly address the issue before us today. NIB
and the General Council share the concern of advocacy
organizations such as the National Federation of the Blind and
the American Council of the Blind. We believe, however, that the
proposal before you will limit opportunities for people who are
blind and will increase the unacceptably high unemployment rate.
Current Data
It is interesting to note that in the past four years the
number of people covered under section 14(c) has declined. In the
NIB-associated agencies, the number of blind people paid wages
below minimum has declined from 1,509 in 1990 to 1,388 in 1993.
It should be noted that of the 1,388 people paid less than
the minimum in FY93, 897 had a documented disability in addition
to blindness while others have a severe function limitation.
These second disabilities include mental retardation, cerebral
palsy, deafness, emotional difficulties, and others. Therefore,
the people who earn below the minimum wage in the agencies
associated with NIB typically have significant functional
limitations in addition to blindness. We believe these are the
people Congress primarily intended to protect from being closed
out of the employment market should employers be required to pay
the federal minimum wage without regard to productivity and
functional limitations.
Also of significant importance is the impact that this
proposed legislation would have upon the number of people who are
employed in agencies not associated with NIB. In FY93 there were
1,093 blind people employed in NISH agencies. NISH is the central
nonprofit agency for organizations that serve people with severe
disabilities other than blindness. This number has been steadily
increasing every year since this information has been available
to us.
Let me summarize some critical data for FY93:
Out of 5,213 people 3,825 made above the minimum and
1,388 made below the minimum wage.
Roughly three out of four (73.4 percent) were paid
above the minimum.
Current compliance responsibilities and activities are a critical
part of this question.
Current Compliance
Presently the Department of Labor is the federal government
agency charged with enforcing the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and its implementing regulations. National
Industries for the Blind under the JWOD program is responsible
for monitoring and inspecting its associated agencies. Presently,
NIB's compliance department reviews each associated agency at
least once every three years. A compliance review is typically
performed over a three-to-four-day period and follows DOL
procedures.
The major role played by NIB's compliance department is to
educate, monitor, and assist its associated agencies to assure
compliance with the appropriate regulations. Follow-up visits are
performed when necessary or requested. However, the DOL is the
Federal agency that is charged with enforcing the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the provisions of 14(c).
Education and training for NIB-associated agencies
concerning their regulatory responsibilities is provided yearly.
Because particular emphasis is focused upon the FLSA and 14(c),
representatives from the Department of Labor are invited to
speak. During NIB compliance visits to agencies that pay some
wages below the Federal minimum an in-depth review is conducted
for their compliance with 14(c).
Summary
NIB and the General Council of Workshops for the Blind
(GCWB) oppose the amendment to Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act proposed in H.R. 3966. Current law does not allow
payment of a sub-minimum wage solely on the basis of visual
impairment or blindness. The current statute allows for sub-
minimum wages only if it can be documented that the person is
disabled for the work to be performed. The current statute also
includes a process for appeal and hearing before a Federal
Administrative Law Judge by an individual who believes his or her
wages do not comply with the law.
The proposed amendment could jeopardize the jobs of 2,481
individuals who have other disabilities in addition to blindness
or visual impairment. Of these blind employees 1,388 are in NIB-
affiliated industries; an additional 1,093 workers who are blind
are employed in facilities associated with NISH. Some might say
that these individuals are disabled by conditions other than
blindness--mental retardation, epilepsy, etc. The proposed
amendment would exclude all employees with blindness, whether or
not they have additional disabilities.
We are deeply concerned when proposals periodically arise to
reduce employment opportunities and options for anyone who is
blind or visually impaired. In this case the potential loss of
employment opportunities is for that targeted group of blind
individuals for whom facility-based employment is often the last
resort. When non-disabled workers are laid off in the private
sector, they have potential options for other employment. For
blind individuals who find employment at sub-minimum wages an
opportunity, there typically is no other option. We don't think
that sound public policy would eliminate an option for a target
population which otherwise may well be sitting at home.
We recommend that Congress:
Consider appropriating additional resources for the
Department of Labor compliance function and maintain current
provisions of 14(c).
Ensure that people who are blind have equal access to
technology and personal assistance services, both of which
are tied directly to employment.
Eliminate the employment disincentives inherent in the
Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income Programs.
Preserve and enhance the employment opportunities for
people who are blind or severely disabled available through
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act as it streamlines federal
procurement in response to the National Performance Review.
Increase such employment opportunities by strengthening
the statutory language which encourages defense prime
contractors to subcontract with qualified nonprofit agencies
for the blind and severely disabled.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Donovan Cooper]
FEDERATIONIST REACHES OUT
Donovan Cooper, who now lives in California, is a long-time
member of the NFB. He practices his Federationism on a daily
basis, which includes public education and distribution of
Federation materials. Recently he has been particularly busy,
with results that are an example and reminder to us all.
In a recent letter to Sharon Gold, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of California, Mr. Cooper said:
Burbank, California
March 3, 1994
Dear Sharon:
Earlier this morning I sent you a copy of a letter written
by the former Bankruptcy Court Clerk, Frank E. Goodroe. I feel
really good about what he had to say, and I was wondering if you
might not want to share this letter with others. Its not that I
want to crow about my accomplishments. It's just that this letter
provides evidence of what we can do if we use the Braille Monitor
and our other NFB literature in productive ways. And you will
notice in the letter how my employer points with pride to my
activities in the National Federation of the Blind. Certainly
with the general public we have earned ourselves a good
reputation.
The January, 1994, issue of the Monitor was well-suited for
the purpose of putting those of us who are employed in a better
position with our supervisors; and I would hope that, by
publishing the letter from Mr. Goodroe, we can stimulate others
to put it to good use. I am most grateful for Dr. Jernigan's
having chaired such a productive technology conference and for
having published the best of the presentations in the Monitor.
Sincerely,
Donovan Cooper
____________________
Office of the Executive Officer
Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Los Angeles, California
March 2, 1994
Mr. Roy Carter
Assistant Director
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Washington, D.C.
RE: Automation Equipment for the Blind
Dear Roy:
The enclosed magazine, titled Braille Monitor, is a
publication of the National Federation of the Blind. A management
analyst from my former staff at the Bankruptcy Court, Donovan
Cooper, sent me a copy of the publication for future reference.
The contents focus on the subject of twenty-first century
technology for the blind. I thought you might wish to share this
publication with appropriate members of your division staff that
might be called upon at some future time to address
hardware/technology issues for special needs court personnel.
Besides being a very talented statistician, Mr. Cooper is
extraordinarily active in the blind community and knowledgeable
of the issues challenging the non-sighted in the work force. Mr.
Cooper would be an excellent court resource if the need arises
for the AO.
Sincerely,
Frank E. Goodroe
Executive Officer/Clerk
That is what Mr. Goodroe wrote, and it is clear that he was
very well informed about Mr. Cooper's volunteer activities on
behalf of the National Federation of the Blind. The following
exchange of memos makes clear why it is that Donovan Cooper's
work colleagues know about his NFB activities. Early this year
all employees at the United States Bankruptcy Court in the
Central District of California received a written warning that
they could no longer solicit contributions from co-workers for
their favorite charities unless they received special permission
to do so. Here are the memo Mr. Cooper wrote seeking continued
permission to educate and raise funds among his co-workers and
the answer he received:
United States Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California
Office of the Clerk
February 4, 1994
Dave Grube, Chief Deputy of Administration
United States Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California
RE: Request for Exemption to Policy
Dear Mr. Grube:
I am in receipt of the memorandum from Mr. Goodroe, dated
February 1, 1994, regarding sales of items on court property. The
memo provided for an exemption to the general prohibition against
such sales when the proceeds from the sales will go to a non-
profit organization and when the employee involved submits a
written request for the exemption containing certain information.
This is such a request.
For more than twenty years I have been a member of the
National Federation of the Blind. I am the current President of
the San Fernando Valley Chapter and of the statewide Diabetics
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of California. I
am a member of the NFB of California state board. I am the former
President of our national Diabetics Division. I am the current
Vice President of the NFB Public Employees Division, and I either
chair or serve on numerous committees. I regard fund-raising for
the NFB as an important obligation; and, as a leader in the
organized blind movement, I must set a good example for others.
Sometimes my fund-raising activities have involved people at
the office, but I have always tried to keep these activities
discreet and non-invasive, and they have never caused significant
disruption to my work at the office or the work of others. When
my co-workers have similar worthy objectives, I try to respond in
kind.
For example, last fall the San Fernando Valley Chapter sold
calendars displaying high-quality reproductions of works of art.
I brought ten of these into the office and offered them to the
RDI staff and to a few other friends who know of and support my
activities in the National Federation of the Blind. The sales
were conducted on a very informal basis. It is likely that my
chapter will again have such calendars for sale in the fall of
1994, and I would like to repeat my offers to those who were
receptive this last fall. There may be other fund-raising
programs that I would like to bring to the office during the
coming year, but in each instance I will ask for your permission
before proceeding.
There is another NFB fund-raising activity in which I
participate on an ongoing basis, but it does not involve sales. I
chair the NFB of California Associates Committee, and I am a
member of our national Associates Committee. While the proceeds
from the sales mentioned above go to our local chapter, the funds
raised through the Associates program go directly to our national
headquarters. This is where most of the money raised by the NFB
is spent and for good reason. Our national organization provides
services that no local chapter or state affiliate could. The
Associates program does not involve sales. Rather it is a program
in which members like me ask supportive friends and relatives if
they would like to become associates of the National Federation
of the Blind and make annual contributions as such. A few co-
workers have understood my commitment to the organized blind
movement and have gladly become associates. I would like to
continue to offer this opportunity to a few close co-workers.
Again the offers would be infrequent and discreet.
Should you like to become an associate of the National
Federation of the Blind, I have enclosed a copy of the form that
must be completed and submitted with your donation. The completed
form and your check in one of the indicated amounts can either be
returned to me or mailed directly to the National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230. I have also
enclosed two publications that present evidence of the work of
the NFB. The first of these is the 1993 Presidential Report,
which was delivered last July at our National Convention, and the
second is the Winter, 1994, edition of Voice of the Diabetic,
published quarterly by the NFB Diabetics Division. This is a
unique magazine in the field of diabetes because it concentrates
on the complications of diabetes and how to live good lives
despite these complications. Many of the articles are written by
diabetics themselves. I have been a contributor. And, without the
information I received through the NFB Diabetics Division, I
would not have had a combination kidney-pancreas transplant or be
actively working today. Whether you wish to contribute or not, I
think you may find this material interesting reading. Thank you.
Donovan Cooper
Management Analyst, RDI
Please RSVP.
____________________
February 10, 1994
From: David M. Grube, Chief Deputy of Administration
Re: Exemption for Sales on Court Property
To: Donovan Cooper, Management Analyst
In response to your memo dated February 4, 1994, this memo
is to approve your request for an exemption to the policy
regarding sales on court property. The fund-raising activities
described in your memo appear to be for a very worthwhile cause
and do not appear to cause disruption to the work environment.
Please proceed with these activities.
If you have any questions or require any additional
information, please contact me at extension 4435.
cc: Mike Rotberg, Division Manager, RDI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STAFF PROFILES:
DONOVAN COOPER
MANAGEMENT ANALYST, R.D.I.
The following article is reprinted from the Full Court
Press, April, 1994, a publication of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California:
If you ever need to build a freeway, the Research,
Development, and Information Division is the place to go to find
assistance. You are probably asking yourself, "Who possesses
these types of skills in the Court?" Well, it's our own Donovan
Cooper.
Anyone who has ever worked with Donovan quickly realizes the
breadth of knowledge that he brings to the Court; however, few
probably know much of his background. Donovan spent his formative
years in the Midwest. He was born and raised in the town of Red
Oak, Iowa, a small farming community in western Iowa. Until he
began high school, he lived on a farm with his family of two
sisters and one brother. His family grew corn and soybeans and
also raised dairy cattle on the farm. As a child he performed all
the tasks around the farm that every farm child has performed,
such as helping in the fields and caring for the animals.
Donovan graduated from high school in Council Bluffs, Iowa,
but did not immediately begin his college work. For four years he
worked as an engineering aide for the Iowa Highway Commission.
The work was hard but never boring. Initially Donovan worked on a
highway construction crew that was laying out the interstate
highway system around Council Bluffs. It was during this period
that he began to lose his vision due to juvenile onset diabetes.
He transferred from the highway construction crews to an asphalt
plant, where he performed quality control work.
Donovan has always had an interest in public affairs, and it
was at this time that he decided to start college. He attended
Drake University, from where he received his Bachelor of Arts
with a double major in economics and public administration. After
receiving his B.A., he continued in graduate school at Drake and
received his masters in public administration.
Although he held a number of jobs after graduation, one
which was particularly interesting was that of admissions market
analyst for Drake University. In this position he conducted
analyses of student and demographic information in order to
provide the admissions officer for the university with
recommendations about where to send recruiters. One result of his
work was the recruiting of Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti students
into the university's pharmacy program.
Donovan moved to California and began his career with the
Bankruptcy Court in 1982 as the first management analyst employed
by the Court. Until the creation of the RDI section, he reported
directly to the Clerk of Court. During his tenure with the Court
Donovan has worked on numerous projects requiring study design,
data collection, and statistical analysis of the data collected.
He has conducted numerous studies including the Electronic Court
Recording pilot project, and the incidence of unlawful detainer
actions and bankruptcy mill involvement in filing petitions.
Besides his work with the Court, Donovan is heavily involved
in the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). He is a former
national president of the organization's Diabetic Division. At
the present time he is the president of the San Fernando Valley
Chapter of the NFB, President of the Diabetics Chapter of the NFB
of California, and also a member of the board of directors of the
NFB of California.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: E.U. and Gene Parker]
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Gwen Stokes]
RECIPES
This month's recipes come from the National Federation of
the Blind of Mississippi.
CORN CASSEROLE
by Gene Parker
Gene Parker's husband E.U. is a longtime leader of the
National Federation of the Blind. He served as President of the
NFB of Mississippi for many years. Gene is an excellent cook. She
brought this casserole to the Thanksgiving Board meeting last
fall, where it promptly vanished.
Ingredients:
2 16-ounce cans cream-style corn
« cup vegetable oil
4-ounce jar pimiento, diced
1 6-ounce package Martha White Mexican corn bread mix with
Jalape¤o peppers
3 eggs
salt & pepper to taste
Method: Mix all ingredients and bake 45 minutes in an open
casserole dish at 350 degrees.
SOUTHERN PECAN PIE
by Gene Parker
Ingredients:
« cup sugar
2 tablespoons flour
1 cup white Karo syrup
3 eggs
1 cup chopped pecans
4 tablespoons margarine
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 unbaked, deep-dish pie crust
Method: Spread pecans in bottom of pie shell. Mix flour with
sugar. Add Karo, eggs, margarine, and vanilla. Pour over pecans
in pie shell. Bake 50 minutes at 350 degrees.
PEANUT BUTTER COOKIES
by Gwen Stokes
Gwen Stokes is Second Vice President of the Jackson Chapter
of the NFB of Mississippi and a member of the state Board of
Directors.
Ingredients:
1þ cup flour
1« teaspoons baking powder
dash salt
« cup butter or margarine
« cup brown sugar
« cup Karo syrup
creamy peanut butter
1 egg, well-beaten
« teaspoon vanilla
Method: Sift together the flour, baking powder, and salt.
Cream butter, gradually adding the brown sugar, until light and
fluffy. Add syrup. Add ¬ cup peanut butter, beat until smooth and
well-blended. Then add egg and vanilla. Add the sifted dry
ingredients a little at a time, mixing well after each addition.
Shape into balls about 1 inch in diameter. Place about « teaspoon
of peanut butter on each cookie. Bake at 350 degrees for 12 to 15
minutes. Makes about 40 cookies.
SOUTHERN CORN BREAD
by Gwen Stokes
Ingredients:
2 cups corn meal
« cup flour
1 teaspoon salt
« teaspoon baking soda
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 cups buttermilk
1 egg
2 tablespoons bacon drippings or melted margarine
Method: Combine corn meal, flour, salt, baking soda, and
baking powder. Sift together in mixing bowl. Add buttermilk and
egg. Stir until well mixed, then add bacon drippings. Pour into a
greased baking pan which has been heated in a 475-degree oven.
Bake for 20 to 25 minutes. Note: if using yellow corn meal,
reduce heat to 425 degrees.
BANANA NUT BREAD
by Gwen Stokes
Ingredients:
1 cup flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 teaspoons baking soda
« teaspoon salt
þ cup shortening
þ cup sugar
2 eggs, well-beaten
1 cup ripe mashed bananas
1 teaspoon vanilla
« cup chopped nuts
Method: Mash bananas. Sift together flour, baking powder,
baking soda, and salt. Beat shortening and sugar together with a
wooden spoon until creamy. Add eggs and beat well. Add the sifted
dry ingredients alternately with the bananas to the sugar
mixture. Beat until smooth. Stir in nuts and vanilla. Bake in a
greased and floured loaf pan (or non-stick loaf pan) at 350
degrees for 1 hour.
MARINATED VEGETABLES
by Lucille Turner
Lucille Turner is an active member of the Jackson Chapter
and mother of chapter treasurer James Prince.
Ingredients:
2 cups French-style green beans
1 can whole kernel corn
« cup onion, chopped
1 cup beets, sliced
1 cup celery, diced
1 small green pepper, chopped
1 small jar pimiento, chopped
Marinade:
1« cup sugar
« cup salad oil
1 cup vinegar
Method: Drain beans and corn. Sprinkle with salt and allow
to sit overnight. Next day, drain beans and corn again. Add
pepper, celery, onion, and pimiento. Add remaining vegetables.
Pour marinade over vegetables and allow to sit overnight.
MY PIE
by Lucille Turner
Ingredients:
1 cup sugar
1 3-ounce package cream cheese, softened
1 15¬-ounce can crushed pineapple
1 8-ounce container Cool Whip topping
1 9-inch pie shell
Method: Combine sugar and cream cheese and blend well. Add
drained pineapple. Fold in topping until well-blended. Pour into
a baked pie shell and refrigerate for 4 hours.
EASY MAKE DUMP DESERT
by Lucille Turner
Ingredients:
1 large can crushed pineapple
1 large can cherries or blueberries
1 box yellow cake mix
¬ pound butter
1 cup chopped pecans
Method: Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Spray a 9 by 13-inch
baking pan with non-stick cooking spray. Layer pineapple evenly
into pan. Place cherries or blueberries on top of pineapple. Pour
cake mix into pan, spreading evenly. Slice butter into squares
and place on top of cake mix. Sprinkle with pecans. Bake in 250-
degree oven for 1 hour. Slice as a pie.
þ þ MONITOR MINIATURES þ þ
þ Newsletter on Financing Assistive Technology Now Available:
We have been asked to announce the arrival of a newsletter
called Financing Assistive Technology, edited by Steven
Mendelsohn, who wrote Financing Adaptive Technology: A Guide to
Sources and Strategies for Blind and Visually Impaired Users. The
first bimonthly issue appeared last March in print and on
cassette and computer disc. The publication promises to fill a
real gap in the disability field, and judging from the first
issue, it will be a welcome addition. Mendelsohn is blind, so he
knows firsthand what he is talking about, and he does what he
sets out to with focus and sense. Subscription costs are
individuals, $39 (one year), $73 (two years), $102 (three years);
organizations/businesses, $45 (one year), $85 (two years), and
$120 (three years). You can receive a sample issue or subscribe
to the newsletter by contacting Smiling Interface, P.O. Box 2792,
Church Street Station, New York, New York 10008-2792; phone (415)
864-2220; E-mail, mendelsohn@delphi.com
[PHOTO: Gwen Rittgers sits on sofa with her dog. CAPTION: Gwen Rittgers, 1914-
1994]
þ In Memoriam:
We are saddened to report the death on May 11, 1994, of Gwen
Rittgers, one of the founders and a mainstay of the National
Federation of the Blind of Missouri. Gwen joined the Missouri
Federation of the Blind (MFB) in 1955 and soon became its
corresponding secretary. She continued in this post until her
strong loyalty to the National Federation of the Blind at the
time of the organization's civil war in the late fifties made her
unwelcome in the leadership circles of the MFB. Following the
NFB's expulsion of fifteen state affiliates, Gwen and a handful
of others worked tirelessly to re-establish a Federation presence
in Missouri. She and her husband George were two of the most
loyal and hardest working Federationists in the state throughout
those difficult years.
Gwen continued to love and serve the National Federation of
the Blind in large and small ways throughout her life. In recent
years her health has been poor, but even when she could not
attend conventions, she remained vitally interested in the plans
being made and the work being accomplished. Her contribution to
the strength and spirit of this organization is a lasting tribute
to her character and commitment and an example to us all. We will
miss her deeply.
þ Sample Medication Now Has Braille Labeling:
We recently received the following announcement:
Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., has introduced Braille sample
packaging for visually impaired patients taking the company's
high blood pressure medication Cardizemþ CD (diltiazem HCI).
Beginning in January, Cardizem CD sample packets for 180-mg, 240-
mg, and 300-mg dosages began appearing in seven-tablet packets
with Braille numbers to the left of the tablets designating the
day of the week. When patients receive a Cardizem CD prescription
from their physicians, they often receive free Cardizem CD
samples. Now blind patients can use samples marked in Braille
provided by Marion Merrell Dow.
þ Handmade Jewelry Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
Get your very own handmade jewelry. All designs are original
beaded pieces, perfect for birthdays or any other special
occasion. Choose from black onyx; fresh water pearls; or any
size, shape, or color glass beads. Prices vary depending on
materials, selection, and complexity of design. Include $2
shipping and handling on each order. To place an order, call
Monica Horodenski at (410) 525-2866 (evenings); or send to 1001
Joh Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21229.
þ Interactive Newsletter on Relationships:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
Janiece Betker, a Federationist from Minnesota, writes as
follows:
Have you been perplexed and amazed at the vagaries of human
relationships? Have you had experiences or solved relationship
problems in ways that might help others? Are there issues you
would like others to help you with? If so, we invite you to join
our interactive newsletter by sending for your free introductory
cassette. Send us your name and address, with your phone number
if you wish, in Braille or on cassette if possible. (Print can be
managed, but your request will be delayed a few days.) Send to
Pipeline, % Janiece Betker, 1886 29th Ave., N.W., New Brighton,
Minnesota 55112; phone (612) 631-2909. Leave name and address.
Help make this newsletter a great success. We want your views in
your own voice. Join our lively discussion group or sit back and
listen. Send today for your free introductory cassette.
þ Braille Signs Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
American Braille Works, a wholesale sign company based in
Beaumont, Texas, announces that it is about to enter its third
year of business. American Braille Works deals exclusively in
interior signage complying with the ADA. Signs are available in
many materials, styles, designs, and shapes. Discounts are
available to non-profit organizations that are making an effort
to make their property more accessible. American Braille Works
also offers a line of Braille menus to help restaurants comply
with the ADA. For more information or a color brochure, contact
an American Braille Works representative at (409) 832-0117.
þ NFB pencils and decals needed:
Dorothy Goodley of the National Federation of the Blind of
Georgia would like to locate NFB decals and pencils. If you know
where she might find them, please contact her at 615 Fifth
Street, S.E., Moultrie, Georgia 31768; or call her at (912) 985-
4064.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Andy Virden]
þ Andy Virden Retires:
Marie Magnuson, Secretary of the Central Minnesota Chapter
of the NFB of Minnesota, reports the following:
In October, 1993, our chapter elected Bob Arnold to succeed
Andy Virden as President. Andy had been our leader for fourteen
years. He retired in January of this year and closed the
newsstand in the St. Cloud post office after thirty-eight years
of service. Under Andy's leadership the chapter has continued to
grow. His influence is still felt in the community. He belongs to
the Waite Park St. Joseph's Church choir, the Waite Park
Boosters, and the Knights of Columbus. He will now have more time
to do the things he wants to. He attended this year's Washington
Seminar and is a member of the National Board of the Blind
Merchants Division of the National Federation of the Blind. He is
now working on a cassette tape about blind people in St. Cloud
for the Heritage Center. We will continue to benefit from the
many friends he has made in the community.
The following is a portion of an article which appeared in
the St. Cloud Times:
After Thirty-Eight Years
Downtown Fixture Calls it a Career
by John DuBois
Post office counter to close with retirement of Andy Virden.
An old man looks at his friend. "I hear you're retiring," he
says.
"Yeah, I am in mid-January," Andy Virden, answers.
"I'm sorry to hear that," the man says. "People are going to
miss you. You're going to miss them, too."
Virden, a blind man who's run a concession stand in St.
Cloud's main post office, is retiring after nearly four decades
of service.
What's more, the little counter where he sold cigarettes,
candy, pop, newspapers, and more is closing as well.
"I've been here thirty-eight years," Virden said. "Twenty-
eight in this building, ten in the old one."
Virden, who's sixty-six now, figures it's time to put his
energy into something else. His concession business took quite a
bit of it.
þ New Credit Card Owner's Manual Available:
We have been asked to carry the following notice:
Visa U.S.A. and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
have created an audio cassette version of Visa's publication,
Credit Cards: An Owner's Manual, designed specifically to
communicate consumer rights and responsibilities and the wise use
of credit to consumers who are visually impaired.
The new cassette, available for borrowing from the network
of regional libraries in the National Library Service system,
covers factors affecting credit card costs, rules and
regulations, and cardholder rights.
Narrated by Broadway actors Christopher Hurt and Catherine
Byers, the sixty-minute cassette includes lively descriptions of
the Cathy [TM] cartoons featured in the Owner's Manual print
brochure. And for Cathy and all who share her personal finance
foibles, the Owner's Manual provides valuable tips on how to use
credit cards wisely and how to make and follow a budget.
þ More About Goats:
Stephanie Pieck, a student member of the National Federation
of the Blind of New York and breeder of champion goats, writes
the following:
Since September, 1993, a publication called Blind Dairy Goat
Breeders of America Newsletter has been mailed from Ithaca, New
York, to interested readers. Beginning with the June issue,
however, the magazine will have a new title, and the address for
the editor will change. It will still be mailed on a monthly
basis, free of charge. It is available in regular print, large
print, and Braille and on cassette. If you would like to know
more about the newsletter or would like to subscribe, write in
any format to Stephanie Pieck, R.D. 3, Box 200, Altamont, New
York 12009, and ask about Goat Notes.
þ Spreading the Word:
Dr. Jernigan recently received a letter from the Director of
the St. Petersburg City Library for the Blind. It is one more
reminder of the growing impact of our literature on people around
the world. Here is the letter:
St. Petersburg, Russia
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Our library has prepared for publication the first material
for partially sighted people in large-print format. It is a
Russian translation of your report, "Blindness: the Pattern of
Freedom," published by the NFB in 1985. We are asking for your
permission to reproduce a Russian translation of this article in
large-print format. We would be very much obliged if you could
give us this permission as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Evgenija Shepovalova
Director
þ Elected:
The results of the recent election of officers for the Omaha
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska are
as follows: Larry Streeter, President; Vicki Hodges, First Vice
President; Robert Newman, Second Vice President; Laurie Eckery,
Secretary; and Bob Simonson, Treasurer. Larry Lee, Alan Kopetzky,
Carol Thompson, and Lonnie Merritt were elected to serve as Board
Members.
[PHOTO: Frank Kurt Cylke speaks at microphone. CAPTION: Frank Kurt Cylke]
þ Honored:
We recently received the following press release:
Frank Kurt Cylke, Director of the National Library Service
for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) of the Library of
Congress, is this year's choice to receive the Joseph W.
Lippincott Award, bestowed by the American Library Association
(ALA) for a lifetime of distinguished librarianship. The award
will be presented during the ALA annual meeting in Miami Beach,
June 23 to 30.
Under Mr. Cylke's direction the number of users of NLS
services has increased to more than 700,000 persons, ranging in
age from preschool to over 100. The NLS budget has grown from
nine point nine million dollars in fiscal 1973, when Mr. Cylke
was named director, to almost forty-three million in fiscal 1994.
We of the NFB join with the American Library Association in
congratulating Kurt Cylke.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dick Snell, Kent McGregor, and Catherine Pickett (left to
right) are pictured here.]
þ New Chapters:
Sharon Gold, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of California, writes a weekly memorandum, called the
"Clipboard," to affiliate leaders. In the April 14 issue she
announced the creation on April 9 of the North San Diego County
Chapter of the NFB of California. The new officers are Julie
Cody, President; Phyllis Bradtke, Vice President; Jennifer
Larson, Secretary; Shirley Baillif, Treasurer; and David Faiman,
Board Member. Sharon says, "This is an enthusiastic group of
people, and I know they will do well in spreading the word of the
Federation throughout the North San Diego County area."
Kristen Jocums, President of the Salt Lake Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Utah, reports that the
affiliate is pleased to announce the formation of the Dixie
Chapter, located in Southern Utah. It was formed during the final
meeting of a conference sponsored by the NFB of Utah in St.
George on April 7, 8, and 9, 1994. The energetic people who
attended that meeting formed the chapter, elected officers, and
began making plans for chapter projects. Congratulations to the
Dixie Chapter and to the following new officers: Kent McGregor,
President; Catherine Pickett, Vice President; and Dick Snell,
Secretary/Treasurer.
þ ChocoBraille Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
The Chocolate Experience, Inc. announces that it continues
to produce the most unusual greeting cards on the market,
ChocoBraille, Braille-embossed chocolate bars.
The gift-packaged ChocoBraille is available to all
individuals, organizations, schools, and agencies; no order is
too big or too small. The cards are ideal for all occasions,
holidays, and fundraisers.
You can express yourself by saying "I love you," "Thank
you," "Merry Christmas," "Happy holiday," "Have a nice day," or
"Happy birthday" in quality-tasting semi-sweet, milk, and white
chocolate and in sugar-free milk and white chocolate (includes
Mannitol as sugar substitute).
The candy bars are seven by four inches and weigh five
ounces. The price is $2.50 for regular chocolate and $3.50 for
sugar-free. Add $1 for each bar with nuts. No minimum purchase
required. You may receive a 10 percent discount on orders of 100
to 199 bars, 15 percent on orders over 200.
To place an order or request additional information, please
contact Judy Geva at the Chocolate Experience, Inc., 150-57
Bayside Avenue, Flushing, New York 11354; phone: (718) 461-1873,
FAX: (718) 321-0217.
þ This Notice May Be for You:
If you were born in 1944 and are planning to attend the NFB
Convention this summer, contact Sharon Omvig evenings and
weekends at (602) 575-0725; 1525 W. Canyon Shadows Lane, Tucson,
Arizona 85737.
þ Identification Requested:
Mr. Lane Anthony, a teacher of blind and visually impaired
children in Wisconsin, has asked that we identify him as the
teacher whose letter to Bonnie Peterson was reprinted as part of
the article "The Struggle to Evade Duty: Wisconsin Teachers of
the Blind Fight Against Braille," which appeared in the March,
1994, issue of the Braille Monitor. Mr. Anthony reiterates that
he stands behind all statements made in his letter.
þ Elected:
The Las Cruces Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind of New Mexico held elections on March 26, 1994. The
officers are Kelly Burma, President; Joaquin Luna, Vice
President; Darlene Ortiz, Secretary; Charly Kirk, Treasurer; and
John Blake and Darlene Gamble, Board Members.
þ Exercise Tape Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
Improve your health and appearance through exercise. "Moving
with Marge," a 50-minute exercise program on cassette tape, has
been designed for people of all ages. Side one contains detailed
instructions for exercises which, if done regularly, will tone
and strengthen the major muscle groups of the body. Side two
contains a variety of musical selections which can be played
while doing the exercises, following Marge's competent guidance.
To order, please send a check made payable to Lois Howard for
$7.50, 61951 High Hill Road, Cambridge, Ohio 43725; or call (614)
432-2287.
