by Winifred Downing
"The Braille Forum" of April 2002 contained the report of the meeting of the ACB board of directors, February 17-18, 2002. An item in that report concerned MaxiAids which had, according to available documentation, purchased Perkins braillers from entities in Africa which had been subsidized by a grant from the Hilton-Perkins Foundation in an effort to promote the education of blind children in developing countries. MaxiAids had allegedly then resold the braillers at lower prices than would otherwise be charged for such braillers. Pursuant to a resolution ACB passed in 1999 (Resolution 99-30), the board of directors decided that MaxiAids could not exhibit at the upcoming convention, advertise in the convention program, or disseminate information about its products in the convention newspaper or on the telephone Newsline.
The report did not quote the 1999 resolution but in paraphrasing it, used the word "convicted" in referring to organizations or agencies that would be judged culpable of business practices meriting the enforcement of the restrictions. MaxiAids strongly objected to this language, and "The Braille Forum" apologized for the error online at the ACB web site.
Since MaxiAids also felt that the judgment was undeserved, because it had already received and returned its application documents in order to exhibit at the convention, Chris Gray, ACB president, assigned a working group under the direction of Steve Speicher, first vice president, to consider the matter. Speicher chose as committee members Brian Charlson, Charles Crawford, Paul Edwards, Oral Miller, and Mitch Pomerantz. Because the committee was not able to reach consensus on the matter, a meeting of the entire board of directors was called on April 30 to attempt to do so.
Members of the working group had access to between 400 and 500 pages of documentation which MaxiAids had submitted as relevant to the problem, and so much material was available concerning contested allegations that it was not possible to read everything. Of the six members who voted, three felt that additional information furnished to them suggested that the matter should be reconsidered. Three, however, believed that the essential facts had not changed and doubted that the entire board would think differently were the matter presented to them.
In an effort to consider all points of view regarding MaxiAids, discussion ensued concerning its history, relationships with other agencies and organizations, and the way in which it is perceived by blind people. Serious consideration was given to the various actions and positions which the ACB might adopt. The board had at its disposal the opinions of the members of the working group derived from their extensive study and could have asked also to hear from the MaxiAids attorney, though they voted not to request his presence.
Some members of the working group and the rest of the board had concerns arising from the documentation they had seen and wished to rescind the decision made in February. They also felt that Resolution 99-30 should be rescinded because, implemented in this instance, it would require that the organization assume a watchdog attitude toward organizations in the future, resulting in its being difficult to administer. Others felt that problems of this type would occur only rarely, that the intention of the convention was clear in passing 99-30 and that the board was at this time required to function with that position in place.
The board voted against rescinding the February decision and recommended to President Gray and Charlie Crawford that guidelines be established for applying Resolution 99- 30 in the future and for the process to be followed in reinstating an organization once barred from participation in the ACB convention. It was resolved that the president, executive director, and chair of the board of publications confer on any further statements necessary concerning this subject.