THE BRAILLE FORUM is available in braille, large type, half-speedfour-track cassette tape and MS-DOS computer disk. Subscriptionrequests, address changes, and items intended for publicationshould be sent to: Nolan Crabb, THE BRAILLE FORUM, 1155 15thSt., N.W., Suite 720, Washington, DC 20005.

Those much-needed and appreciated cash contributions, which aretax deductible, may be sent to Brian Charlson, Treasurer, 115515th St., N.W., Suite 720, Washington, DC 20005.

You may wish to remember a relative or friend by sharing in thecontinuing work of the American Council of the Blind. The ACBNational Office has available printed cards to acknowledge toloved ones contributions made in memory of deceased persons.

Anyone wishing to remember the American Council of the Blind inhis/her Last Will and Testament may do so by including a specialparagraph for that purpose. If your wishes are complex, you maycontact the ACB National Office.

For the latest in legislative and governmental news, call the "Washington Connection" toll-free at (800) 424-8666, 6 p.m. to midnight eastern time Monday through Friday. Washington, D.C.,residents only call 331-2876.

I have just finished appointing the last of the committees for this year. More than 100 people serve on committees. These committees do a great deal of work for ACB by way of volunteer assistance to the organization. We would spend far too much money if we had to increase our staff to take on the vital work of these committees.

Three committees which will meet at the convention include Credentials, Constitution and Bylaws, and Resolutions. The chairs of these committees are: Carl McCoy, Scott Marshall, and Paul Edwards, respectively.

Should you have any recommendation for these committees you may send them to our Washington office and the office will make sure the chairs have them before convention time. The Washington office address is 1155 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005.

I'm sure the Resolutions Committee would be grateful if you could send your resolution in ahead of time or at least have it appropriately prepared when it is presented to the committee. The committee is willing to rewrite your resolution but would prefer not to write it from scratch.

The Awards Committee is chaired by John McCann. I'm hopeful that by now, you've sent your nominations to the national office as instructed in the January "Braille Forum."

There are two new committees this year. They are: the National Committee on Minority Affairs and Committee for Women's Concerns. They are chaired by Pamela Shaw and Bernice Kandarian, respectively. Both committees will have programs at the convention. Check your convention program as to time and place.

Many of our committees work by telephone and put in long hours. The Scholarship Committee is one of those. I would like to thank all the people who are willing to give of their time and expertise to ACB by serving on committees.

By the time you read this you should have received and completed your pre-registration packet. I hope by now you've made your hotel reservations as well. The Palmer House has around 1,600 sleeping rooms so this year there is no backup hotel. This hotel is large enough to handle all our meetings and exhibits in the same building. Both meeting rooms and exhibits will be close together.

Our office staff and Convention Committee are working hard to complete all the last-minute details in preparation for the convention. Putting the convention together is really a major job. In fact when we finish a convention we start planning for next year's convention.

I hope to see all of you in Chicago in July. It promises to be our best convention ever. As you read this, it's only days away.

Early April found ACB leaders meeting simultaneously with national and international officials on matters of great importance to blind people. On the same day, ACB President LeRoy Saunders, ACB Secretary Patricia Price, Glenn Plunkett of the national staff and representatives of nearby affiliates were meeting in Atlanta with the president of the World Blind Union while ACB governmental affairs director and I were meeting with Judith Heumann, Assistant Secretary of Education, Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. The Atlanta meeting was incorporated into an international conference dealing with aging and blindness and the Washington meeting resulted from an invitation from Assistant Secretary Heumann to representatives of the blindness field to meet with her to discuss issues of concern. The Washington meeting ultimately concentrated on reports by various OSERS officials. Those officials reported, among other things, that the office had improved its internal capability for making printed material accessible to blind employees; that focus groups were studying better data collection methods for national rehabilitation statistics; that meetings would be conducted in coming weeks with appropriate officials regarding possible revisions to the Randolph- Sheppard vending regulations; that work groups would also be studying the gathering of data regarding such matters as braille literacy and training, orientation and mobility, and use of alternative formats; that materials such as the Rehabilitation Act will be made accessible (to be discussed subsequently); that a focus group will be studying the improvement of educational outcomes (staying in school, higher education and jobs); that work is moving forward on the preparation of a guidance book to field offices regarding the needs of blind children; that the department realizes the need for a continuum of educational services while giving consideration to concerns such as parental rights, religious schools, assessments of performance, funding of special education, outreach to infants and toddlers, "inclusion" and the department's research agendas; that the administration's bill regarding reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will probably be ready by November of this year; that the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research is providing input to the administration regarding telecommunications, the information superhighway and graphical user interface controls; that NIDRR will have its yearly directory and other materials available on computer disk and in braille, and that the recent request for proposals by NIDRR regarding communications and the ADA encouraged coalition action between disabilities. During a very brief comment period it was pointed out by this writer or others that grants involving communications and different disabilities would have to be larger than contemplated because small grants cannot be all things to all people, and that accessibility for blind people cannot be construed only as availability on computer disk or computer network.

Early April also saw the resumption of regional leadership training seminars by the American Council of the Blind. The popular series of seminars conducted by ACB during the 1980s was interrupted by economic restrictions following the sponsorship of seven very successful workshops, so the first such workshop of the 1990s, which focused on ACB affiliates in the northeastern and middle Atlantic states, was greeted with great enthusiasm and interest. The seminar took place in Meriden, Conn., provided training to approximately 60 members selected by the affiliate presidents and subsidized in part by ACB. The topics covered included such practical skills as setting and accomplishment of goals, affiliate organization and operation, fund raising, media relations and public information, grass roots advocacy, membership maintenance and development. We want to thank the Connecticut Council of the Blind for the gracious hospitality and assistance which it gave in logistical arrangements connected with the seminar. It is hoped that ACB will be able to conduct similar seminars throughout the country in coming years.

Recently it was my pleasure in my capacity as a volunteer officer of another organization to attend a large dinner in Washington sponsored by the U.S. Olympic Committee and various corporate sponsors to honor the members of the 1994 American Olympic and Paralympic teams. The dinner, which was attended by dozens of congressmen and addressed by President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore, gave special recognition to, among others, the two blind athletes who performed outstandingly at the 1994 Paralympics in Lillehammer, Norway. Mr. Brian Santos of California was recognized as the winner of four gold medals in Alpine skiing and Ms. Michele Drolet of New Jersey was recognized as the first American female Nordic skier ever to win a medal in Olympic-level competition.

Since senators and congressmen make speeches almost every day, why should there be a luncheon hosted in the U.S. Capitol celebrating the 25th anniversary of the presentation of the first speech of a freshman senator? Because that senator, Robert Dole of Kansas, was considered to be the first to identify himself as a disabled person and to emphasize the needs of disabled people! The luncheon, which it was my pleasure to attend, was hosted by Mr. Tony Coelho, the newly appointed chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. Mr. Coelho, who presented the banquet address at the 1990 ACB national convention in Denver, was himself honored the next morning at a large Capitol Hill breakfast attended by, among many others, ACB governmental affairs director Paul Schroeder and I. I was given an opportunity to make a short statement greeting Mr. Coelho and offering our assistance to him. Mr. Coelho replaced Justin Dart Jr. as chairman of the President's Committee. Mr. Dart, who is a life member of the American Council of the Blind, continues as a dedicated advocate for the rights and well-being of all disabled people.

Inasmuch as the ACB director of governmental affairs and his legislative assistant do outstanding jobs in communicating up-to- date information via the "Washington Connection" and by other means, I seldom mention congressional hearings and similar activities. However, recently he, the editor of "The Braille Forum," dozens of other advocates and I attended a hearing conducted by Senator John Glenn of the Committee on Governmental Affairs regarding the funding of mandated services. Many of the witnesses, such as the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Nebraska, urged passage of a bill which would, in effect, excuse states, counties and cities from performing duties imposed by federal statute if federal funding were not included to pay for those services. A seductive-sounding argument? Other witnesses, such as Justin Dart Jr., pointed out eloquently and persuasively that such a statute would cut the heart out of the Americans with Disabilities Act and countless other civil rights, environmental, health, safety and welfare programs.

Good news, at least on one front, in the continuing saga regarding the U.S. Postal Service and free matter mailing service! Recently Blindskills Inc., the publisher of "Dialogue" and "Lifeprints," received the decision in response to its appeal of an adverse ruling by the Postal Service which, if upheld, would have imposed a postal deficit of over $42,000 and would have effectively barred those outstanding magazines for blind readers from being sent through the mail as free matter for the blind. The extremely good news is that the Postal Service, while canceling the postal deficit charge, ruled that the inclusion of a subscription form did not constitute illegal advertising and, as expected, that the magazines were being sent to blind people and that the nominal subscription fees charged did not produce a "profit." It was our pleasure to assist Blindskills Inc. in the preparation of both appeals. However, the bad news is that there are still several unreasonable, ambiguous or inconsistent provisions in the postal regulations governing free matter service and we are apprehensive as to how the Postal Service will codify the recent ruling about Blindskills in its internal manuals and operating instructions. I am looking forward to discussing this matter in more detail during the workshop that will be sponsored by the ACB board of publications during the coming national convention in Chicago. We are in continued communication with the Postal Service in Washington on this matter, and have invited the Postmaster General to speak on the national convention program, but we do not believe he wants to accept our invitation.

ACB staff members did accept some invitations this past month, however, to speak at various conventions. Staff members represented ACB in conventions in Wyoming and Colorado.

The 33rd Annual National Convention of the American Council of the Blind is just about here. Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton Hotel are waiting for you. If you have not sent your pre- registration forms to ACB Assistant Treasurer James Olsen, please do so immediately. Forms received after June 20 may not be approved for pre-registration discounted rates. Also, you should sign up for tours early, since space on buses is limited. You may contact the Palmer House Hilton at (312) 726-7500. International Tours of Muskogee, Okla., ACB's designated travel agency, can be reached at (800) 259-9299. LAST MINUTE INFORMATION:

1. Airport Express vans are available at both O'Hare and Midway airports to transport you to the hotel. Round-trip tickets can be purchased in the baggage area. There will be volunteers at both airports.

2. The convention program is available in large print, braille, and on cassette tape. Request your program in the format you prefer. Be certain to review the preliminary information in the program. This information will answer many of your questions.

3. When you check into the hotel, a sheet of information is available in large print or braille. Be sure to request it.

4. There will be a volunteer desk in the hotel lobby. The ACB registration desk is on the sixth floor; the information desk, the press room, and the convention office are on the fourth floor.

5. The exhibit hall, located on the fourth floor, will open at 1 p.m. on Saturday, July 2. The hotel has escalators from the ground level to the fourth level.

6. The hotel lobby and check-in desk are located on the second level, but that level is designated as the first floor. When entering the hotel at the main entrance on Monroe Street, you will encounter steps up to the lobby. Past the steps to the next hall you'll find an escalator. There will be volunteers at the front entrance.

Your convention committee assisted by the Illinois Council of the Blind Host Committee and the Chicago chapter are doing their best to accommodate you. Our 33rd annual convention will be a great success.

NELDSB is a civil and legal rights organization. Its board of directors, listed below, will meet in the Palmer House Hotel on Saturday, July 2. It will also hold a membership meeting there commencing at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, July 7, ACB's 33rd anniversary. All interested persons are invited to attend and to join. Annual dues for the calendar year are $12. There will be additional information and applications for participating membership at the Alaska Independent Blind booth in the convention exhibit area.

Anyone not attending the convention may join by sending dues of $12 payable to NELDSB with name and address to Jewel McGinnis, Treasurer, 1591 Jackson #8, San Francisco, CA 94109.

NELDSB is an independent, non-profit incorporated organization. Its officers and directors are all members of ACB, but we recognized that there is a great unmet need for this kind of a non- political service organization and decided not to be a voting affiliate of ACB. Its official statement of purpose is included below.

This is a very ambitious undertaking and we invite your financial support. We will seek support from appropriate funding sources to assist in the achievement of our purposes, but we believe it is altogether fitting that we, as blind and visually impaired persons, should share in the financial responsibility for establishing this service.

In today's complex society, there is a genuine need for a support organization to help protect individual and organizational rights and interests. Few can afford the expense of such litigation. Obviously, NELDSB can be only a partial solution, but its formation is a constructive way to provide a special private resource to fill the unmet need for this service. We all know of instances where blind and visually impaired individuals and their organizations have been sued or their rights denied, and where they could not claim their rights or benefits, because they did not have the necessary resources. In some instances, class action suits may be our best remedy, particularly where there are violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The officers and directors constitute the voting membership of this organization and as the board of directors, they are the organization's governing body. They are: Allen "Sandy" Sanderson, Anchorage, Alaska, chairman; Jewel McGinnis, San Francisco, Calif., treasurer; Durward K. McDaniel, Austin, Texas, secretary; LeRoy F. Saunders, Oklahoma City, Okla.; David Adams, Stone Mountain, Ga.; Allen Jenkins, Berkeley, Calif.; Dr. Otis H. Stephens, Knoxville, Tenn.; Carla Franklin, Louisville, Ky.; Charles S.P. Hodge, Arlington, Va.; Jamal Mazrui, Somerville, Mass.; and Kae Pohe, Boulder City, Nev. Chairman Sanderson's address is 1102 West International, Anchorage, AK 99518; phone (907) 563-2525, fax (907) 562-5951. He will be in Chicago all during convention week.

The purposes of this organization are:

A. To establish and administer a national non-profit 501(C)(3) tax-exempt public interest educational and legal defense/advocacy service organization to protect and to advance the interests of blind and visually impaired persons, their organizations, and related entities.

B. To assist such blind and visually impaired persons and their related organizations in their need and right to gain access to the public justice system in our country.

C. To promote the empowerment and participation of blind and visually impaired persons in and through organizations of their choice, especially former participants and others who have never participated.

D. To cooperate with the American Council of the Blind, its affiliates, and other organizations of and for blind and visually impaired persons in furtherance of these purposes.

E. To do any lawful thing to facilitate accomplishment of these purposes.

We, the electorate, have a number of interesting choices to make at this year's convention. There will be elections for one of the vice president positions and a number of seats on the board of directors and board of publications. We will have to decide whether the convention or the board should select future convention sites. And there may even be a few proposed amendments arising out of Charlie Hodge's fine series here in "The Braille Forum" reviewing our constitution and bylaws. But next year we will choose our next president.

During my third year in law school, I sought out one of my professors after going through my notes in preparation for the final exam. "Mr. Zimring," I said, "I'm worried about this exam. All I have in my notes are question marks." He replied: "Mr. Speicher, you'll do just fine. That's all I have in my notes, too." Thinking about next year's presidential election reminded me of this experience because, once again, I've come up with more questions than answers.

Here are some of the short-term questions: Who might run? How did they achieve their current status in ACB? Will they present us with real choices to make? Will they offer us a wide enough range of skills and abilities, a sufficient stock of whatever it is we most need in our president? And what is it, anyway, that we do most need in that position? But as a member of the long-range planning committee, two questions with longer-term implications have recently caught my attention, courtesy of my paternal grandfather.

He spent a lot of years buying and selling residential real estate. When looking at a lot as a potential home site, he asked two questions: Can you get water, and can you get rid of it? Translated into the ACB context, these concerns look like this: How can we assure ourselves of a sufficient, continuing supply of qualified candidates for the ACB presidency? What can we do if we, the electorate, make a bad mistake, or if for some other reason ACB's continued well-being requires that a president be removed from office?

The position as ACB's president is fast becoming a full-time job, if it has not done so already. The president has oversight responsibility for national staff, is in demand to speak at state affiliate conventions and other functions, writes a monthly column for "The Braille Forum," sits ex-officio on several boards and other bodies which require not only travel time but work as well, is actively involved with ACB's financial health and development, represents ACB before bodies in this and other countries, appoints and supervises the work of ACB's various committees and spends considerable time helping with issues arising within or among ACB's numerous state and special-interest affiliates. Weekends at home become rare, airline meals frequent, and time for activities not related to ACB hard to come by -- and all for no compensation other than expense reimbursement. So who could responsibly volunteer to take on such a job? For a self-employed person there are two options: go out of business, or find an extraordinarily capable backup who could keep the business running and growing for the presidency's duration -- possibly up to six years. An unemployed person needs either a very well-employed spouse or an absence of financial obligations such as mortgages to pay or children to put through school. An employee needs both such financial freedom and either a career change or an extraordinarily understanding employer who is willing to grant a virtual leave of absence for from two to six years.

Anyone active in local politics might have to give that up, because the ACB conventions would always conflict with Fourth of July command performances in the home district. Try making a list of people you consider qualified for the job, then erase the names of those who either can't or won't make the required sacrifices. How many names do you have left?

Delegation could help to some extent. I've never really understood why ACB has two vice presidents. But since we have them, why not ask each of them to do a lot of real work during the year? For example, one might be in charge of recruiting potential committee members for the president's consideration and for supervising the committees once they are appointed. The other might ride herd on all convention-related issues and handle other jobs as assigned. Unless built into an intentional structure of leadership development, the actual assignments don't matter. They just have to be substantial enough to allow a mere mortal to be ACB president while keeping in touch with a career and having a family life.

But before delegation can help in this way, certain conditions must be met. First, the people we select to serve as vice presidents have to have adequate skills and abilities: we should never regard these positions as unimportant. Second, those people have to be willing to commit the amount of time necessary to take substantial amounts of work off the president's desk. Third, the president has to have enough confidence in the vice presidents to be willing to delegate significant amounts of work to them. Fourth, the president has to be able to count on the vice presidents' completing assigned tasks in a timely manner: any failure in that regard will result in the job not getting done or in the president eventually resigning because he or she prefers that to a divorce or unemployment. To put these conditions in place we have to do three things: take the vice presidential positions much more seriously than we sometimes do; demand the appropriate commitments of time and energy from the vice presidential candidates; and elect the vice presidents before we elect the president. This last is necessary because a presidential candidate should have the freedom to withdraw if he or she decides that the vice presidents we have provided will not permit him or her to do the job as it ought to be done.

What about making the ACB presidency a salaried position? This would certainly make it more attractive to the unemployed, the under-employed and maybe even some of the self-employed. But do we really want to solicit candidates for whom a regular paycheck is a major consideration? On the other hand, do we want our choices to be limited to those who are financially independent? At this stage of my thinking, the salary option seems to raise more questions than it answers. With due respect to the board of publications' Candidates' Forum, with a salaried presidency I think we would need better and more reliable tools for distinguishing the sweet-talking gold-digger from the articulate blue-chipper. Do you have any ideas about how voters in ACB elections could become better informed about candidates' real motives and long-term objectives?

Here's a less troublesome way to increase and improve the crop of potential candidates: leadership training which is long-term, structured, intentional, and progressive. Everybody can help with this one. Just stay alert for people with talent. If you're not in a position to make appointments, volunteer to do something which will help your affiliate, then ask your prospect for assistance. Being "intentional" means that you know what you are doing and why you are doing it. Being "progressive" means starting small but giving those who do well something a little more demanding next time. Being "structured" means keeping track of the results of your efforts in these areas and building on the successes. Thinking "long-term" means just that. At the mid-year meeting both the board and the affiliate presidents were treated to an impressively organized and delivered address from a Michigan eighth-grader who asked ACB to form a teen affiliate. Why should she not be tagged as a potential, eventual ACB president and helped and encouraged to acquire the necessary skills-starting now?

Okay. Let's assume that by some combination of means we manage to provide ourselves with a sufficient array of qualified presidential candidates who offer not only solid but also exciting choices and prospects for ACB's future. We've talked about how to "get water". Now what about getting rid of it? How can ACB protect itself if we, the electorate, make a very bad choice, or if a fine presidential prospect somehow goes very sour once in office?

Neither our Constitution nor our Bylaws provide any procedure for removing a president from office. In an organization many of whose members profess considerable mistrust of absolute power in high places, I find this a curious omission. Regardless of where you stood on Watergate, weren't you glad that the U.S. Constitution provided an orderly procedure for resolving the matter? So, does ACB need a recall procedure?

Those who know ACB's history better than I tell me that by and large we have been exceptionally fortunate in all of our past presidents. So why tinker with something that doesn't look broken? First, because of the presidency's increasing demands, some very able people who might have been available as candidates in the past would not now be willing to enter the field. Circumstances are changing. As the money market ads say, "past gains are no guarantee of future performance". Second, we all hope that ACB will continue to grow in membership, resources, responsibility and both national and international visibility. But to the extent we succeed in these goals, it will become just that much more possible for a negligent, greedy, misguided or malicious person at the top to damage or throw away years of hard work and hard-won credibility.

"Phantoms," you say. "Delusions. It will never happen here. We're all good, loyal, trustworthy, competent and caring folk hereabouts." Sure, let's hope all that's true. But if you want to build ACB's future on that single assumption, with no provision for dealing with mistakes, then you probably carry no insurance and cross the street without checking the traffic patterns first. You're also more of a gambler than I or the drafters of our nation's Constitution.

So just in case I'm not completely alone in my concerns, let's consider some balancing at the top. Let's improve our ability to attract a larger number of qualified candidates to run for the ACB presidency; and let's think about ways to help them do a better job once elected. But at the same time let's provide ourselves with an agreed-upon procedure we can use in case, like some other best-laid plans, these should happen to go astray.

The board is currently scheduled to look at these and similar structural issues within ACB at its fall meeting. The long-range planning committee will be preparing a report to submit to that meeting. So if you have ideas or suggestions in these areas or others where ACB could be improved, please contact your favorite board member or the committee, whose members include: Pam Shaw, Bernice Kandarian, Sue Ammeter, Paul Edwards, Bud Keith, Durward McDaniel, Steve Speicher and Otis Stephens; President Saunders, Chair.

At last year's annual convention, the Virginia Association of the Blind, which had existed as the Tidewater area chapter of the Old Dominion Council of the Blind, initiated a rather formidable campaign to be recognized as a chartered state affiliate of the American Council of the Blind. This campaign led to considerable discussion and debate among conventioneers and the board of directors concerning the rather thorny and delicate problems posed by having two chartered affiliates in a given state. While the ACB constitution and bylaws do not prohibit the chartering of dual affiliates, those documents appear to contemplate a "one affiliate per state" structure. Nevertheless, situations may arise where the chartering of a second state affiliate, while not being the most desirable option, may be the only viable way to defuse or resolve an untenable situation, thereby preserving the ability to continue promoting the goals and objectives of ACB.

Mindful of these concerns, president LeRoy Saunders established a committee to recommend policies and/or objective standards to be considered when addressing a "dual affiliate" situation. The purpose of this article is to solicit ideas, suggestions and recommendations from ACB members on this important topic. Some of the particular aspects of the problem on which the committee would especially wish to receive comment are:

1. Should a distinction be made between the chartering of an independent organization and chartering a breakaway faction of the existing state affiliate?

2. Should the decision to charter a second affiliate consider objective criteria of viability beyond what is prescribed in the constitution and bylaws, i.e., regular meetings, number of members, etc. (Consideration of such criteria would help to avoid the situation where the board is compelled to accept a second state affiliate upon the petition of 10 disaffected persons.)

3. Should the board, in the case of a breakaway chapter of an existing affiliate, consider the extent to which the chapter presents (or is capable of presenting) the interests of the entire state? (Such consideration would obviate situations where board action in granting a charter would promote regional factions within states, thereby undermining ACB's ability to work effectively within that state.)

The above list of considerations is only intended to broadly outline the extent of the problem and the committee's charge. Everyone is invited to forward thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc. to the committee chairman, Steve Speicher, at 825 M St., Suite 216, Lincoln, NE 68508, or via ACB On-Line at (202) 331-1058.

On April 28, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights held a hearing on the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

"The purpose of today's hearing is not to debate the merits of inclusion," said Rep. Major R. Owens (D-N.Y.), "but to define the necessary elements and supports that must be in place in order to make inclusion work successfully for students, parents and teachers. Education in the regular classroom must be a viable option for every child with a disability, but accomplishing that requires much more than moral pronouncements from Washington. Through today's hearing we hope to learn more about what the community thinks schools need to make inclusion both possible and effective."

The first person to speak on reauthorizing IDEA was Elizabeth Truly from the American Federation of Teachers, also an attorney with the New York State United Teachers. "The IDEA, and its predecessor, P.L. 94-142, have provided access to free, appropriate public education for millions of previously unserved and underserved children with disabilities," she said. "This legislation has changed forever the way we provide education to students with disabilities. IDEA provides students with disabilities with individualized instruction through the Individualized Education Program or IEP. It provides families with avenues to ensure that their children receive quality public education." She then focused on children in education, urging the representatives to strengthen the law while preserving its best qualities. The federation has heard reports from many members about lack of services and poorly planned programs, "Yet the solution to the present problems of special education is not to dissolve the special education system that has taken years to develop and that responds so well to many children's needs," she said. "Nor is the solution to place all students in general education classrooms without regard to the nature or severity of their disability, without regard to their ability to function or behave appropriately in the general education classroom, or without regard to the educational needs of other children. Rather, the solution is to discover why many students have a lack of services, poorly planned programs and poor outcomes and then to address their problems within the framework of a continuum of alternative placements that does include the general education classroom as one alternative, but still responds to individual needs." Truly stressed the need for the availability of a continuum of alternative placements by incorporating those words into the law itself. A continuum is implied, but not explicitly in IDEA, she stated. Some states have inclusion policies that require that all disabled students be educated in regular classrooms -- a "fail first" policy. "Placing them in regular classrooms based only on their membership in a group will be as devastating to many of them as placing them in special education classrooms based only on their membership in a group has been."

She then recommended that Congress appropriate "substantial additional funds to assist school districts in meeting the needs of all students in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs," and meet the promises it made when IDEA was passed in 1975. "The mandates from Congress for the education of students with disabilities keep multiplying, and the costs of complying with the mandates multiply, while revenues for schools decline," Truly said. "The special education budget is too inviting to ignore and so many districts are adopting wholesale dumping programs which they mislabel inclusion. This huge burden of unfunded mandates is partially to blame for the abuses we are seeing in the name of inclusion." She also recommended, among other things, that Congress provide additional support for pre-referral services and early interventions; amending "stay put" to allow districts to make responsible interim placements of violent or disruptive students until parent/administration disagreements are resolved; amending IDEA to require teachers with substantial contact with a student to be a member of the multi-disciplinary team and permit that teacher to be present at IEP meetings, to allow any teacher of a student to refer that student to the multi-disciplinary team for evaluation or re-evaluation at any time, to require the presence of the person(s) who referred the student at the initial multi-disciplinary team meeting, to allow teachers to file complaints on students' behalfs, and to forbid school boards and district administrative staff from harassing or intimidating teachers who file complaints; and to amend the statute to prohibit school districts from requiring teachers and paraprofessionals to perform medical procedures on their students.

The next speaker was Barbara Raimondo, from Sulphur, Okla., a board member of the American Society for Deaf Children and the mother of a deaf child, who was in attendance. She too stressed that the continuum of alternative placements should remain. "Full inclusion should not be mandated," Raimondo said. "Placements should be driven by the individual needs of the child, not the placement preference of the Local Education Authority.

When it comes to real inclusion -- true communication and meaningful interaction with people and access to all information in the environment -- sadly, this arrangement often amounts to nothing more than exclusion. This placement, thought to be the least restrictive environment, may turn out to be the most restrictive." And each option should be considered equally valid as a first choice; children should not have to fail first before other options are considered, she said.

One question parents of deaf children hear often is, "'Why doesn't your child attend a regular school?'" The response is: "Our children do attend regular schools. They attend regular schools for deaf children." At those schools, everything is accessible to them: filmstrips are captioned, fire alarms have flashing lights, and communication with staff and friends is easy. Raimondo stated that "separate schools and programs for deaf children nurture, support, teach, and challenge them." Those programs are often better able to meet deaf children's needs, she added. And the children's needs should determine where they are placed. She included possible wording changes for IDEA, such as: from "to the maximum extent appropriate" to "to the extent appropriate."

The next speaker, Brenda Welburn, executive director of the National Association of State Boards of Education, spoke in support of inclusive education. "Research supports that a significant number of children who move into supportive inclusive classrooms enjoy greater academic and social success in such an environment," she said. Welburn mentioned the NASBE study group's "Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools," which focused on such concerns as: the disproportionate number of minority students in special education; excessive labeling of students for services; segregation of students into separate classes; limited curricular options for many special education students, and less attention to monitoring instructional outcomes. "Two years after the release of 'Winners All,' it is clear that inclusion is not an abstract theory or a fad; it is happening all over the country and we are encouraged by the reports we hear," Welburn said. "Inclusive schools are creating better academic and social outcomes for all of the students involved -- both those with and without disabilities." The study group believes that "a philosophy of inclusion is pro- child, pro-student and consistent with our belief that all children can learn." NASBE does not support the model that dumps a disabled child in a general education class without supporting services. Welburn offered two thoughts for the subcommittee's consideration: labeling of children by disability in order to identify them for funding purposes, which "often has a negative impact on the self- esteem of children," and training of personnel at the pre-service and in-service levels of general and special education teachers and administrators. "Too often special education teachers feel they should or can work only with students identified as having a disabling condition," she stated. "Many general education teachers feel they are not prepared and should not have to work with disabled students. This blinders approach does not serve students in either system well." She hoped the subcommittee would keep inclusion in mind during the reauthorization process.

The last speaker on panel one was Dr. Patrick Schwarz from District 146, Tinley Park, Ill. Tinley Park is a school district that includes disabled students in their neighborhood schools, thanks to a dramatic restructuring program that began in 1990-91. "We believe that all children, including children with disabilities, have the right to be educated, to belong, to grow and to develop friendships in natural settings, including neighborhood schools," Schwarz said. He told the story of Brian, a student with cerebral palsy who speaks via a computer with voice output, and how Brian won the race for student council secretary. In order for the students to hear the speech, the principal held the microphone in front of the computer's speaker. "The students went wild -- they thought this was really cool -- and he won the election with more votes than all of the other candidates combined," he said. "Every student in the school learned something very positive about differences from Brian -- and Brian has become more confident and better prepared to make a life in the 'real world' from these experiences."

Schwarz discussed the program's beginnings, from information gathering to in-service programs and planning for a small pilot model demonstration for an inclusive neighborhood school, to two target pilot schools. Teachers had weekly action plans and alternative plans. Also during that year, the Tinley Park school board "adopted a statement of philosophy that mandated a home/neighborhood school model for the entire school district and created action plans that refined the model for the following year." Year three saw greater strides toward a "'zero reject model'" -- no one would be excluded from their neighborhood school. Now in its fourth year, Tinley Park has eliminated all self- contained classrooms, identified and delivered services to students by grade-level teams of special and regular education teachers, including therapies. The program involved communication with families via a written tool, "IEP at a Glance," which stated how teachers were addressing individual needs identified on the student's IEP. "Families who have children with disabilities have reported to us that they feel included in their own neighborhoods because children without disabilities are now asking their children to play, go to parties and be their friends," Schwarz said. "One of the more notable changes in our story is the attitude of the regular educators. When these individuals were asked to observe the special education classrooms ... they reacted with anxiety about the changes that they were going to face in their classrooms. The same educators now report that our current inclusive education model, while not 'easier,' is much better than the self-contained options." He hoped that Tinley Park's experiences would help clarify "some of the issues involved in promoting what we so strongly believe: education works best when it addresses the needs of all students in natural, inclusive settings, with services and supports provided as necessary."

After the recess, the subcommittee heard from panel two. Its first speaker was Dr. Marie Ficano, chairman of the National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children's Government Affairs Committee, which is also a member of Action for Children to Insure Options Now. ACTION "was formed for the singular purpose of preserving the continuum of alternative placements and services when IDEA is reauthorized." Ficano said NAPSEC is concerned about implementing "'one size fits all' policies that emphasize a place instead of the child's individual and unique educational needs, (which) may result in limiting the child's ability to achieve his/her maximum potential." She urged the representatives to include the continuum of placements in the law to prevent "the misinterpretation of what is required for FAPE." Ficano also stated that there were a few problems with Part of IDEA. Before it was enacted, infants and toddlers with developmental delays or disabilities received programs and services; afterward, Part H "was used to dismantle systems, save dollars and provide less under the guise of compliance with federal law." She recommended a "'maintenance of effort'" provision in the law. She also said that the transition language needs to be strengthened, and that appropriate pre-service, in-service and training should be provided for those who work with infants and toddlers with disabilities. The language in the bill should focus on the child, not the place, Ficano said, and the child's needs should be given top priority. She also asked that the continuum be included in IDEA.

Dr. Linda G. Morra, Director of Education and Employment Issues of the Health, Education, and Human Services Division of the General Accounting Office, also spoke in favor of inclusion with support services. The districts she and her comrades visited offered one piece of advice: "Go slow." There are four key conditions to make inclusion work: a collaborative learning environment, natural proportions of disabled students in their local education setting, adequate support for classroom teachers, and defining special education as a service instead of a place. Placement in an inclusion program depends on the needs of the student, not on the student's disability, according to the district and school staffs she spoke with, Morra said. But inclusion doesn't fit everyone, staffs realize. In discussions with those staffs, major questions came up in regard to funding, access and equity, and the federal role. "As districts create entirely new ways of serving all students, what happens to special education funding?" Morra asked. "What do we do with federal funding formulas and other regulations that are categorical and may work against education reform and inclusion programs? . . . What role does the federal government play in creating standards and assessments?" With all these questions, Morra said, it's easy to understand why the people her group spoke with said to take it slowly when working on inclusion. It's difficult, but it can work.

Robert Chase, vice president of the National Education Association, spoke next. "The issue of inclusion for disadvantaged students is complex and frequently sensitive," he said. "But setting and applying appropriate policies regarding education of individuals with disabilities is absolutely essential to fundamental national education and social goals. . . . as a practical matter not all students are always best served by learning together in one environment. It is a recognition of that reality, and the complexity of choices it forces, that brings us here today." Inclusion does have benefits, he said, but it should be appropriate -- contribute to breaking down attitudinal and physical barriers that prevent disabled students from realizing their full potential, and assure that communities share the benefits gained from each person's participation regardless of that person's limits. Chase recommended five things for appropriate inclusion: a full continuum of placement options and services in each option; appropriate professional development of all educators and support staff associated with such programs; adequate time to engage in coordinated and collaborative planning on behalf of all students; class sizes that are responsive to student needs, and staff and technical assistance that is specifically appropriate to student and teacher needs. "Inclusion practices and programs which lack these fundamental characteristics are inappropriate and must end," he said. Chase also said it might be time to review the "stay put" rule with regard to violent students in classrooms.

The final speaker was Carlos Oberti, a parent from Clementon, N.J. "The demands on a child with a disability are not so extraordinary when a group of knowledgeable professionals, together with the parents, have a genuine desire to do what is correct and meet to discuss the abilities, strengths and special needs a child may have as they develop a fully supported inclusive educational plan," Oberti said. "If that is done instead of 'dumping' a child in the regular classroom, and if it is done on an ongoing basis, none of the 'robbing' of the rest of the students will occur." His son Rafael, who accompanied him, had gone through six different placements by the time he was seven years old. He went to a developmental kindergarten, learned letters, numbers and colors, and made friends. The teacher, however, had not known until three days before the school year began that Rafael would be in her class, and didn't have enough time to make adequate plans; nor did she have an aide or special education consultant available. The school made a case for a so-called "wonderful placement" with possibilities of inclusion. "The classroom itself was not what we were led to believe," Oberti said. "He learned nothing, he did not want to go to school, he started wetting his bed, something he had long outgrown. . . . There were not opportunities for inclusion, although the multi-disciplinary team members had assured us there would be." So after their due process, the Obertis placed their son in a private school, and he is doing well. "He was recently recognized for his scholastic efforts," his father said. "Fully supported inclusive education does work."

Following each panel, there was a question and answer session with regard to each person's testimony. Also, the Council for Exceptional Children submitted written testimony supporting inclusion with support services.

(Editor's note: Evan R. Shirley is an attorney in private practice in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was the attorney for the blind vendors in the Hawaii Supreme Court case, "Hawaii Blind Vendors Association v. Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii.")

Blind vendors have reclaimed vending facilities at Honolulu International Airport after a 23-year hiatus. As a result of victory achieved by Hawaii's blind, the largest vending enterprise ever to be operated by blind people under the Randolph-Sheppard laws is set to begin full-scale operations on June 1 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The new, "state of the art" vending facilities are composed of six stores, all located within Honolulu International Airport.

"The victory is the result of blind persons sticking together and dedicating themselves to win a fight that lasted more than 10 years," said Warren Toyama, chairman of the litigation/mediation team. "The airport stands now fall under the state's blind vending facilities program for the first time since 1962."

The airport stores expect revenues of $8.5 million to $9 million annually. The Honolulu International Airport is a huge complex comprising nearly 30 square miles and serving more than 90,000 travelers a day. The newly renovated stores feature newspapers, magazines, food and beverages, and other products especially needed by travelers. The airport news-vending stores are to be operated in June by Blind Vendors Ohana, Inc. ("Ohana" is a Hawaiian word meaning "family.") The corporation is owned by three blind entrepreneurs, Filo Tu, Walter Ishikawa and Thomas Morikami.

Since November of last year, blind people have been operating the news-vending concession located in the new Inter-Island Passenger Terminal at the Honolulu airport. The single store (which serves only passengers traveling to or from Honolulu and three other counties: Maui, Kauai and Hawaii) has annual revenues of approximately $1.25 million.

Warren Toyama, founder of the Hawaii Association of the Blind, says, "Operation of the Inter-Island facility was an important step because it marked the return of blind vendors to the Honolulu International Airport." In 1971 the Department of Human Services refused to renew the lease of State Vendors, Inc., a for-profit corporation owned by 10 blind people, at Honolulu International Airport. In place of blind vendors, DHS entered into a lease with Makaala, Inc., a non-profit organization formed by former Hawaii state governmental officials to provide employment to people with disabilities, including blind people. Makaala, Inc. has operated the Honolulu airport stores since 1971.

"The opening of the airport news-vending stores this June marks the culmination of an 11-year struggle waged by blind vendors against Makaala, Inc. and the Department of Human Services, State of Hawaii," Toyama said.

The blind vendors filed suit in 1984, but lost the first round in circuit court. "But we knew we were right and we were not going to quit," he said. "We appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court."

In 1990, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and ordered that the Department of Human Services begin hearings on the legal claims of the blind vendors. "The victory is the result of the sustained efforts of a small but dedicated and organized group of blind people in Hawaii," said Filo Tu, president of the Hawaii Association of the Blind. "The Hawaii Association of the Blind tried to obtain financial help from various national organizations, but in the end we had to go it alone. We held rallies, sold 'huli huli' (barbecued) chicken, and raised money any way we could.

Victory of the blind vendors in Hawaii was highlighted by a number of important partnerships between private enterprise and government.

"The most obvious private/public partnership," said Durward K. McDaniel, "is the Hawaii's mini-Randolph-Sheppard program itself. It authorizes blind entrepreneurs to operate vending facilities in state and county buildings -- and the Honolulu airport is nothing more than a very large state building." Attorneys McDaniel and Robert R. Humphreys were consultants working with the blind vendors and their attorneys, Evan R. Shirley and Stanley E. Levin.

Another important partnership between private enterprise and government occurred in the litigation that continued after the 1990 decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court. The blind vendors were able to obtain the agreement of the State of Hawaii to attempt mediation of the dispute over the Honolulu airport news-vending facilities. Mediation is voluntary and seeks to obtain the agreement of all parties to resolve a dispute. The mediation went forward under the auspices of the Judiciary's Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution even though one of the parties to the dispute, Makaala, Inc., boycotted the entire process.

For the purpose of the mediation, the Hawaii Association of the Blind put together a negotiating team consisting of four blind people: Warren Toyama, founder of the association; Don Thomson, professor of sociology at Leeward Community College in Waipahu, Hawaii, and first vice president of HAB; Clyde Ota, the vendor operating the news/vending facility at Kahului Airport in Maui, and Filo Tu, vendor at the State Tax and Unemployment Office and HAB president. The Hawaii Association of the Blind was founded 27 years ago.

The mediation was successful in producing an agreement between the blind vendors and the State of Hawaii concerning all neighbor island airports in 1992 and an agreement concerning Honolulu International Airport in 1993.

Another aspect of important partnerships between private enterprise and the government relating to the news/vending concessions operated by blind entrepreneurs at Honolulu International Airport is the one that included DFS Hawaii (Duty Free Shoppers) and the Department of Transportation. DFS is the world's largest airport concessionaire and provides name-brand goods to international travelers seeking high-quality merchandise.

The State of Hawaii Department of Transportation sought to improve the vending facilities at the airport, both in terms of physical plan and methods of operation. The blind vendors turned to Duty Free Shoppers for guidance and assistance. DFS Hawaii aided them in terms of expertise regarding airport marketing, employee training, warehousing, store design and other important functions. "We want to thank DFS Hawaii for its help," said Don Thomson. "You often hear that corporations do not carry their weight when it comes to public service. That is certainly not true with Duty Free." The Department of Transportation is pleased with the progress of the blind vendors and likes the new stores, said Owen Miyamoto, administrator, Airports Division, Department of Transportation.

On March 11, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in State of Minnesota, Department of Jobs and Training, State Services for the Blind and Visually Handicapped v. Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, et al. The unanimous three-judge appellate court panel opinion was written by Circuit Judge George G. Fagg, and concurred in by Circuit Judge Frank J. Magill and Senior Circuit Judge Donald R. Ross.

To refresh all of our memories regarding this legal struggle that has spanned nearly a decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1985 denied the request of the Minnesota licensing agency for permit to continue the operation of a vending facility at the Veterans Affairs' Saint Cloud, Minn., Medical Center, thus threatening the continuing livelihood of the licensed blind vendor who had been operating that facility for many years under an operating agreement between Veterans Affairs and the state licensing agency. The state licensing agency promptly filed for arbitration under the remedial provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, and the Secretary of Education convened an arbitration panel. After much brief-writing, arguments and considerable delay, the arbitration panel ruled in 1990 that the Veterans Affairs Department was subject to the priority in favor of blind vendors under the Randolph-Sheppard Act but that the department could insist upon substituting an operating agreement containing a clause entitling Veterans Affairs to a commission of the vendor's gross sales instead of the normal permit to operate his location. This result was a mixed bag with the decision in favor of the Veterans Affairs coverage under the Randolph-Sheppard Act priority being a major victory for the state licensing agency and its vendor, but with the decision permitting Veterans Affairs to substitute an operating agreement including a commission provision for the usual permit being a major blow against the state licensing agency and its vendor. The agency and vendor then sought judicial review of the arbitration panel's decision in U.S. District Court for Minnesota. In the district court, the Veterans Affairs Department made a two-pronged argument. First, it argued that it simply was not subject to the priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, relying on certain provisions of the Veterans' Canteen Service Act. Second, it said that even if it were subject to the priority provisions of the act, it could nevertheless demand commission payments from the blind vendor in return for granting the vendor continuing operation of the vending location. The agency argued that the arbitration panel had gotten it right on the basic coverage point, but then went on to argue that the implementing regulations under the act made it clear that a federal property management agency was not entitled to charge commissions on a permit location.

In 1992, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled in favor of the state licensing agency and its vendor on both issues, thus affirming the arbitration panel on the basic coverage point, and reversing the panel's decision on the commission's point, dealing the Veterans Affairs Department a bitter blow. The department, along with other federal defendants, then prosecuted this appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Despite the fact that the department had apparently conceded that it was covered by the priority provisions of the Randolph- Sheppard Act during oral arguments, the Court of Appeals in its March 11 opinion went out of its way to hold that the Veterans Affairs Department, as a cabinet-level department of the executive branch, is clearly covered under the act. The court went on to hold that the provisions of the act on the one hand and the Veterans' Canteen Service Act on the other hand are not inevitably inconsistent or in conflict with each other and that the basic terms of both laws can harmoniously coexist with each other. Once having ruled on the coverage issue affirming the arbitration panel and the district court on that point, Judge Fagg, in a striking passage, wrote that the Veterans Affairs Department as a covered federal property management agency under the act had no right to pick and choose which provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act implementing regulations it would or would not abide by. The court then held that the implementing regulations regarding applications for permit locations by state licensing agencies were clear on two points: that a permit, once issued, must be for an indefinite period, and that a federal property management agency could not charge commissions on the state licensing agency's and licensed blind vendor's rights to operate a location under permit. This holding affirmed the district court on this crucial point while overturning the arbitration panel's ruling. The court did indicate that the Veterans Affairs Department did have the right under the implementing regulations to bargain or negotiate over many terms of a permit application. At the end of its opinion the court indicated that the Veterans Affairs Department had two alternatives to follow if agreement could not be reached on those aspects of the permit that were subject to negotiations under the regulations.

Veterans Affairs could deny the permit application, in which case that department would have to explain in writing why granting the permit would be adverse to the interests of the United States. Such an action could, of course, then be made the subject of an arbitration demand under the act by the state licensing agency. Or if Veterans Affairs continues to be convinced that the prohibition against its collection of commissions is adverse to the interests of the United States, the department has the right to submit in writing a proposed limitation on the opportunity for the licensed blind vendor and the state licensing agency to operate a particular location to the Department of Education. If the Rehabilitation Services Administration approves such a limitation request in writing, then Veterans Affairs could charge commissions on that particular location as an exemption to the normal application of the provisions regarding permits in the implementing regulations under the act. While this second alternative course of action is somewhat disturbing, since it holds another delaying tactic out for the Veterans Affairs Department instead of granting the permit application without charging commissions, the ruling of the Court of Appeals is a smashing victory for the legal position taken by the Minnesota State Licensing Agency and its licensed blind vendor, as well as being utter defeat for the Veterans Affairs Department. The Minnesota State Licensing Agency is to be commended for its stick-to-itiveness and stamina in steadfastly standing up for and defending its licensed blind vendor against the legal arguments of the Veterans Affairs Department as a recalcitrant, non-complying federal property management agency under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. I call upon other state licensing agencies to do the same.

We applaud the Minnesota State Services for the Blind for their actions in this matter. At this writing, the federal parties in this case have apparently decided not to seek Supreme Court review of the decision. We can only hope that the Veterans Affairs Department and the other federal litigants will take the Court of Appeals' opinion to heart, cease their recalcitrant non-compliance with the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and do what they should have been doing all along, namely providing solid business opportunities for licensed blind vendors under the act. We call upon the Rehabilitation Services Administration to assume its rightful leadership role and to use this decision as a weapon in gaining full compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act by all federal property management agencies.

Men and women from throughout the United States converged on Washington in mid-March for what was billed as the first ever vendors conference of its kind. They brought ideas, enthusiasm, and determination to the conference table, and they came seeking solutions to serious problems in the Randolph-Sheppard vending program--problems they say continue to hamper the progress of the program nationwide. The conference was sponsored jointly by vendors and the National Council of State Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Howard Moses, acting director of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, told conferees the Clinton administration had little time in which to complete its agenda for the first term. He said any reform of the Randolph-Sheppard program should be inclusive, voluntary, and from the bottom up. "You have the experience to provide practical, meaningful ideas for reform," Moses told the vendors. "I hope you will keep the word 'reform' foremost in your minds as you meet over the next few days."

He played down any differences between the Rehabilitation Services Administration and vendors. In so doing, he sought to alleviate some of their fears regarding possible changes in the Randolph-Sheppard law. "I want to assure you that RSA has no plans to open up the Randolph-Sheppard law to include people with other disabilities."

Moses pointed out various statistics which indicated that federal spending for the vending program has risen slightly and that vendors earned more in 1993 than in previous years. He acknowledged that the program can use some reform. "We need more vending facilities and better interaction with the private sector." He called for a national training program for vendors and promised cooperation with the National Council of State Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired and vendors to accelerate the use of technology in the program. Two-way instantaneous communication between vendors and state agencies regarding financial records and inventory information could enhance opportunities for vendors and allow more efficient information sharing.

He urged the development of brochures, videos and other recruiting tools to interest blind and visually impaired people in the program. "We could encourage rehabilitation counselors to recruit from under-represented groups who do not know about the program or feel that the program may not be receptive to them." He said women, Latinos, blacks and blind individuals with multiple disabilities could be potential candidates for such recruiting.

In a question and answer session that followed his remarks, ACB First Vice President Charles Hodge lashed out at the performance record of the Department of Veterans Affairs, one of the agencies represented in an interagency task force on the Randolph-Sheppard program. Hodge accused the veterans department of "paying lip service to the vending program." "You know that Veterans Affairs is placing limitations on the rights of blind vendors," Hodge told Moses, "yet you do nothing, and your lawyers do nothing about this. I'd like to have a response about what you intend to do to bring the Veterans Affairs department, which is a rogue elephant maverick federal agency, into line." At that point, Hodge drew enthusiastic applause from the audience. For his response, Moses turned to an attorney from the Department of Education. She said the Department of Education is bound by Justice Department rulings which would allow fast food outlets in facilities that ought to include Randolph-Sheppard facilities. Hodge countered that the Randolph-Sheppard Act doesn't stipulate that facilities of a certain size are exempt from the act. He also reminded RSA officials that the Department of Education is similar to the Justice Department as a fellow cabinet agency. He said Education Department officials should be more proactive in advocating for blind vendors with the Justice Department. "I see no activity on the part of the Department of Education in trying to intercede with the Solicitor General, and I think it's disgraceful," Hodge said. RSA officials countered that additional participation on the part of the state licensing agencies and vendors could help reverse the limiting trends currently seen in the program.

Judith Heumann, Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, addressed the vendors during a luncheon on the first day of their conference. She assured them that despite their concerns, RSA staff members were genuinely interested in doing what they could to advance the program. She gave an overview of some of the programs in her office which deal with blind and low vision people. "We do not have a policy right now within OSERS for blind and low vision individuals," Heumann explained. "That's something we want to put together." Heumann said the spirit of reform in her department is alive and well. "We really want to capitalize on programs that work -- that lead to successful, gainful employment and that provide disabled people with the independence we seek. I can't think of a better example of a program that does all of these things and more than the Randolph-Sheppard program of which you are all a part."

Heumann reviewed some well-known statistics with her audience regarding unemployment among disabled people. "I can assure you that if all of our programs were as successful as the Randolph- Sheppard program," she said, "we would be in much better shape as a result. What your program has accomplished represents the true model of what we're trying to do throughout the department for all children, youth, and adults including those with disabilities."

The remainder of her remarks focused on various programs within the Department of Education that deal with disabled children. She discussed the progress of such programs as transition and early intervention. "We look very much forward to working with all of you and really . . . identifying problems that exist within the program and finding ways of ensuring that we at the federal level can be taking a more proactive role and utilizing our attorneys for advice and guidance, but not allowing attorneys to just direct everything that we're doing."

From time to time questions arise as to how countable income is determined for self-employed individuals and what are universal business expenses. Inasmuch as the law and regulations are not detailed, I asked for material used by SSA in program operation manuals. The program operations manuals are used by field office personnel in making decisions on claims for benefits.

The following material is taken from SSA operating instructions for determining "countable income" where the working beneficiary has unincurred business expenses.

(A) Determining "Countable Income"

The SGA Earnings Guidelines are a basis for evaluating whether an individual engaged in SSA. Evaluation of a self-employed person's work activity for SGA purposes is concerned with only that income which represents the person's own productivity. Therefore, before applying the Earnings Guidelines, it is necessary to ascertain what portion of the individual's income represents the actual value of the work he or she performed. To do so, the adjudicator must first determine the individual's net income (i.e., gross income less normal business expenses). Once net income is determined, it is necessary to deduct the value of any significant amount of unpaid help furnished the self-employed person by a spouse, children, or others; impairment-related work expenses (IRWE) (if not already deducted from gross income as a business expense); unincurred business expenses paid for the self-employed person by another individual or agency; and soil bank payments if they were included as farm income. . . . The portion of the individual's income remaining after the applicable deductions represents the actual value of work performed. This is the amount which is counted for purposes of determining the issue of SGA and is, therefore, compared to the Earnings Guidelines. For ease of reference it is called "countable income."

1) Unpaid Help

The reasonable monetary value of any significant amount of unpaid help furnished by a spouse, children, or others should be deducted from net income. Obtain facts which would permit an estimate of the reasonable value of unpaid help furnished by family members or others. When it is clear that the help rendered consists of miscellaneous duties carried on in connection with the person's general activities as a member of the household or as a friend, a statement to this effect will be sufficient, and no estimate of value will be necessary (e.g., a farmer's children feed a small flock of chickens or tend a home garden). On the other hand when the help furnished is of a nature to which commercial value would ordinarily be assigned, the following type of information should be obtained:

a) The name of the helping individual and this person's relationship to the impaired self-employed individual;

b) The reason why unpaid help was furnished;

c) A full account of the services rendered, the amount of time furnished and how long the arrangement existed;

d) An estimate of the reasonable value of the services on the basis of prevailing remuneration for that type of work in the community; and

e) If the help was furnished by a spouse or by a child under age 18, an explanation of how the previous pattern of such individual's activities was affected, if at all.

In estimating the amount to be deducted for unpaid help, consider the prevailing wage rate in the community for similar services. Where the unpaid help is rendered on a part-time or intermittent basis, only the pro rata value attributable to the services actually performed (as compared with those that a full- time employee would perform) should be deducted.

Example:

Mr. J., a former automobile mechanic, became disabled as a result of an accident. Through the services of a rehabilitation agency, he opened a candy and cigarette counter in January 1982 in the lobby of an office building. He ran the business as a self- employed individual and was able to serve customers, make change, and perform the various other duties connected with the business. However, once a day he needed help in restocking the shelves. Mr. W., a janitor in the same building, donated an hour of his time each day, without pay, to perform this service for the claimant. In estimating the amount to be deducted from net income, we considered the prevailing local rate of $3.25 an hour for this type of help. Hence, although Mr. J.'s net reportable income for income tax purposes was $3,900 a year (or an average of $325 a month), his income was found not substantial because the deduction of approximately $65 per month for unpaid help resulted in "countable income" of not more than $300 per month for 1982; and, development established that Mr. J.'s livelihood from the business was not comparable either to his own past personal standard of livelihood or to the community standard of livelihood.

2) Unincurred Business Expenses

In the course of doing business, a disabled self-employed person ordinarily incurs (i.e., becomes liable for) normal business expenses. These incurred expenses, whether paid by the self- employed individual or by someone else, are deducted from the individual's gross income in order to determine net income. In some instances, however, an individual may be aided in establishing or sustaining a business by a rehabilitation or other agency or another person. For example, a sponsoring agency or another person may incur responsibility for and pay certain business expenses for the disabled individual (e.g., rent, stock, purchase and repair of equipment, etc.). In addition, in some situations there may be no actual expense specifically incurred and paid by anyone for things provided the disabled individual (e.g., the disabled person operates a business in a building used by a government agency and the agency incurs no additional expense for the space or utilities it provides the individual).

In order to determine "countable income" in such cases, deduct from the individual's net income any business expenses which were incurred and paid by another person or agency. Also, deduct the value of things provided the disabled individual even though no actual expense was incurred and paid by anyone for the things provided the disabled individual. The method of determining the deductible amount in this type of situation is dependent upon the kind of things provided the disabled person. For example, when space and utilities are provided, ascertain the fair rental value of the space and utilities provided. When items (e.g., adding machine) are provided, use a system comparable to the depreciable method used by self-employed persons for income tax purposes, i.e. depreciate the items over their useful life and deduct the share of depreciation attributable to a given taxable year. This policy is consistent with the principle that only income attributable to an individual's own productive work activity should be considered in determining SGA. It is also analogous to the policy on unpaid help discussed above, which makes it possible for a disabled individual to have a higher income than he or she would ordinarily have by virtue of his or her own work activity alone.

The following information must be obtained when the self- employed individual uses things in the business that another source paid for or provided:

a) The name of the individual or agency that paid for or provided things, and the relationship of that person or agency to the self-employed individual.

b) The reason the things were paid for or provided.

c) A full account of the things paid for or provided, the amount of expenses paid or value of things provided, and the period during which the things were paid for or provided.

The above should be of help to you when discussing your claim with SSA personnel. Quite often, when your tax return is recorded by SSA and the income reported for tax purposes indicates possible SGA, you will need to show documentation for unpaid help and unincurred business expenses since SSA has knowledge of such as related to your benefits.

Always keep good records!

(Reprinted with permission from "Horizons," June 1994.)

It's June and schools are about to let out. Discipline in school, a basic concern (even before kids started bringing guns to school), tends to be worse than normal as students' minds focus more on summer vacation than the classroom activity.

As the school year ends, a new case, Virginia Department of Education v. Riley, F2d. (4th Circuit No. 94-1411, sl. op. April 29, 1994), has brought renewed public attention to the issue of disciplining students, particularly when the child has a disability but the misconduct is unrelated to the disability. Serious offenses in school can lead to significant sanctions, a suspension or even expulsion. For students with disabilities, particularly those receiving special education services, the review of the situation must transcend beyond the usual "what happened?" Whether the offending conduct was caused by the disability and not some other factor is a crucial question. A related critical consideration is what is to be the child's educational placement while the disciplinary process is contested.

While there is relatively clear guidance on the placement issue, the new Riley case signals the opening of serious debate on the issue of disciplining a disabled child/student for untoward conduct unrelated to the disability.

Let's begin with the established parameters. If a child is receiving special education services and commits an offense based on his/her disability, e.g. a child with an appropriate special education placement because of an emotional disability or a neurological impairment coupled with impulsivity strikes out at someone, the rules are clear.

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) prohibited school systems from disciplining (expelling or suspending) a student for disability-related behavior for more than 10 days without a hearing and other protections of the law, then known as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). The Supreme Court reasoned that these significant sanctions would result in a change of the disabled student's placement, for which the special education law mandated a hearing. The disabled student was entitled to "stay put" in the current school placement while the disciplinary hearing was pending.

Since Honig it has been recognized that a series of suspensions that are each 10 days or fewer in duration could create a pattern of exclusions and also can constitute a change of placement. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act made clear that a school district could discipline a disabled student who uses drugs or alcohol to the same extent it could discipline a non-disabled student. In such a situation, the "stay put" rule would not apply. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 122111 (a)(iv).

In the new Virginia v. Riley case the issue triggering the controversy was the discipline to be meted out to a disabled child who is appropriately educationally placed and commits an offense unrelated to their disability. Suppose a child with dyslexia comes to school with a gun or a child with a hearing impairment punches a fellow student for messing around with his girlfriend? What then?

Under the special education law, IDEA, states submit plans for services and the rules applicable to such services to the funding agency, the U.S. Department of Education. Virginia sought $50.2 million from the federal government to serve 128,000 disabled students all across the state. The Commonwealth of Virginia rules provide that where there is no disability-discipline causal connecting link, a child with a disability may be disciplined in the same manner as a non-disabled child. In other words, if a child receiving special education services for reasons unrelated to his/her disability commits a serious offense, it would be possible to cut off all education services.

In December 1993, the U.S. Department of Education notified the Commonwealth of Virginia it could not cease the provision of educational services to the disciplined child (as occurs in suspensions and expulsions) even if the discipline resulted from behavior unrelated to the child's disability. To the feds, the state ran afoul of the law assuring all children with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public education.

Virginia and the federal government went back and forth, neither side able to convince each other, with the $50.2 million in federal grant funds hanging in the balance. The lawsuit was filed when the federal government made clear that the money would be withheld -- without a hearing for the state.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, while pursuing its challenge in court, agreed to follow current federal education policy and to continue special education services to disabled students expelled or suspended for long-term reasons unrelated to disability.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order, an injunction, prohibiting the federal government from withholding the money and disrupting the state's educational program. The federal government must give the Commonwealth of Virginia a full due process hearing before it can withhold the grant money.

While Riley is strictly a narrow ruling on process, it raises an important issue at a high level: what to do if a child acts out for reasons unrelated to his/her disability. If a child paints graffiti on the school, does it matter if the child is in a wheelchair or the football team captain? It is basic that every child should receive an education, at least the opportunity for it. But what if the child -- able-bodied or disabled -- acts out in a way which merits discipline? If children with disabilities are to be mainstreamed and included in public schools, should not these children have to obey the same rules as their classmates when their conduct does not have anything to do with their disability?

School may be over for the students this month. But with Virginia v. Riley, we are all about to take a refresher course on education and discipline. School is not out. Class is just coming to order.

Probably the easiest way to assist your favorite non-profit organization is by having a small amount withheld from your paycheck every payday. This process is identified as payroll deduction, and has been used effectively by large fund-raising campaigns such as the Combined Federal Campaign, United Way, Community Chest and many others for years. The American Council of the Blind has been taking part in the Combined Federal Campaign for many years and has received substantial assistance from members and others who specifically designated ACB to receive their donations. However, the campaign in which most employers have participated, the United Way, has generally been very restrictive as to which organizations could be benefitted by specific designations.

In most communities throughout the country, the United Way is changing its restrictive policies, though very slowly. These changes have resulted primarily from demands by donors to have greater freedom in selecting which organization they prefer to benefit. The net result is that, in most communities, donors can now write in the name of the recognized charity to which they want to give money regardless of whether that organization is listed in the materials distributed as part of the workplace solicitation campaign. Unfortunately, even in those communities many tradition- bound United Way organizations still ignore the new policy and ignore the wishes of the donors or establish last-minute, unpublished criteria designed to keep the money in its traditional places rather than sending it to the intended organization.

I am publishing this article at this time as a way of informing the readership of "The Braille Forum" that they should have options available to them during the coming fall United Way campaign. I am inviting the readers to designate the American Council of the Blind of Washington, D.C., by name during the coming United Way campaign. However, since many campaigns still engage in the questionable practices summarized in the preceding paragraph, I am asking anyone who designates money for the American Council of the Blind to notify me of that designation so this office can follow up with that local United Way campaign. This article is based on actual experience involving, among others, donations designated to ACB by ACB officers or board members but not sent to ACB without considerable effort on our part -- and even then, not all of the designated money was ever received.

We are communicating with the ACB affiliates in the states where Independent Charities of America has established local operations.

The announcement of new products and services in this column should not be considered an endorsement of those products and services by the American Council of the Blind, its staff or elected officials. Products and services are listed free of charge for the benefit of our readers. "The Braille Forum" cannot be responsible for the reliability of products or services mentioned.

NEW FROM AFB PRESS

"Prescriptions for Independence," by Nora Griffin-Shirley and Gerda Groff, is a manual on how older visually impaired people can pursue their favorite activities and interests in community residences, senior centers, long-term care facilities and other settings. Topics include signs of vision loss, recreation, personal care, orientation and mobility, and environmental modifications. It costs $25, plus $3.50 postage and handling. To order, send your name, address, request and payment to the American Foundation for the Blind, c/o American Book Center, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Building No. 3, Brooklyn, NY 11205, or phone (718) 852-9873 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time.

TOY GUIDE FOR KIDS

Toy Manufacturers of America and the American Foundation for the Blind have put together a booklet called "Guide to Toys for Children Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired." The two groups introduced the guide at the F.A.O. Schwarz Fifth Avenue (New York) store on November 16. Copies are available from the AFB, 15 W. 16th St., New York NY 10011, phone 1-800-232-5463 (in New York, 212-620-2147); and from Toy Manufacturers of America, 200 Fifth Ave., Suite 740, New York, NY 10010, phone (212) 675-1141.

MATHENY'S OUTSTANDING

Roberta Jane Matheny, a deaf-blind citizen of Fort Worth, Texas, was presented with the 1994 Private Sector Employee of the Year Award in a ceremony on April 21. She joined the wire force at Tandy Wire and Cable eight months ago.

WESTIN IS CMA

George A. Westin has earned the Certified Management Accountant designation. Accountants who earn the CMA have displayed proficiency in many facets of accounting and financial management.

CYLKE RECEIVES LIPPINCOTT

Frank Kurt Cylke, director of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, was the American Library Association's choice to receive the Joseph W. Lippincott Award for a lifetime of distinguished librarianship. The award will be presented during the association's annual meeting in late June.

JOHNSON RECEIVES MCKNIGHT

Frank Johnson, a volunteer with the Retired Senior Volunteer Program in Richfield, Minn., is a recipient of the McKnight Award in Human Service. He is also a volunteer for the United Way's First Call for Help, and a member of ACB of Minnesota. He is a founding member of the Minneapolis Senior Workers Association, and served as executive director of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind from 1960 to 1976. SOS IN SEATTLE

The Lighthouse for the Blind in Seattle has a new vocational education training program for people who are visually impaired. The Service, Office & Systems Program is a computer-based class that equips blind and visually impaired students for careers in customer service or a general office environment. It is offered for credit in conjunction with a local community college. The next class is scheduled to begin in October. If you're interested, call the Lighthouse at (206) 322-4200, TTY (206) 324-1388, or write The Lighthouse for the Blind in Seattle, P.O. Box C-14119, Seattle, WA 98114.

AWARD WINNERS

The 1993 Vendor of the Year Award was presented to Murlin Pousson of Gretna, La. He has worked since 1988 with the University of New Orleans as a consultant to the vending program.

The first Don Cameron Advocacy Award was presented to Paul Verner of Tampa, Fla., for his extraordinary dedication toward promoting the goals of RSVA, RSVF, and the FCB, "including his actions to develop leadership, legislation, communication and blind awareness." (From "The Vendorscope," fall 1993.)

HELP FOR LD ADULTS

The HEATH Resource Center has recently published a guide called "National Resources for Adults with Learning Disabilities." It is available in print and on computer disk from HEATH or from the National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center. To request a copy, call HEATH at (800) 544-3284; within the Washington, D.C. area, call (202) 939-9320. Or contact the NALLDC at (202) 884-8185.

NEW CHAIRMAN IS ...

The new chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities is former Democratic Congressman Tony Coelho. Vice chairs are Neil Jacobson of Oakland, Calif., and Karen Meyer of Chicago, Ill.

ALL ABOUT CREDIT CARDS

Visa U.S.A. and the American Foundation for the Blind have created a cassette version of Visa's "Credit Cards: An Owner's Manual," designed to communicate consumer rights and responsibilities to visually impaired consumers. The cassette is available for borrowing from regional libraries for the blind. To find your local NLS network library, call 1-800-232-5463; in New York, call 1-800-620-2147.

SEEKING BRAILLERS

A group called SERVE, that works with blind people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, is seeking five Perkins braillers, 11 by 11 1/2- inch braille paper, plastic covers, spiral binding, pre-braille plastic models to be used in the thermoform printer to produce different shapes, sizes, animals, etc., low vision aids, slates and styli, 20 click-lock padlocks for the children's resource rooms, and braille watches. If you can spare any of these items, send them to SERVE, P.O. Box 477, Peshawar, Pakistan.

NEEDED: BOOKS

The Popular General Book Corporation of Bangladesh is seeking braille books, papers, writing frames, cassettes and cassette recorders. If you have any of those items to spare, send them to the corporation at 16/A Tejkuni Para, Firmgate, Dhaka-1215, Reg- Dha-016, Bangladesh.

SCHOOL NEEDS HELP

The Bombali School for the Blind in Sierra Leone needs help. It teaches the formal school program, as well as crafts. It needs braille writing materials, eating utensils, and other equipment, as well as financial assistance. It also could use educational tapes, braille books and dictionaries, and cassettes and cassette recorders. If you have any of these to spare, send them to the school care of Dr. C.A. Macauley, 31 Mabanta Road, Makeni, Sierra Leone, West Africa.

THEY WANT YOU ...

The Polk Council of the Blind in Lakeland, Fla., wants you to be a member. It meets the first Saturday of each month at 11:30 a.m. with lunch served. Its goal is to provide fellowship with other visually impaired people; it holds a walk-a-thon each year to bring attention to members' capabilities. For more information, call 683-9007 in Lakeland, or write PCB, P.O. Box 1167, Lakeland, FL 33802.

GIFTS ETC.

For a print price list of gifts, novelties, toys, etc., contact Larry Clay, 806 Bellows Ave., Columbus, OH 43223; phone (614) 464- 9325 or 1-800-484-8242, extension 9325.

TRAVELING EXHIBITS

The Smithsonian Institution's Traveling Exhibition Service will be at the following locations on the following dates: Oct. 1-Dec. 11, Cleveland Health Education Museum, Ohio; Jan. 7-March 19, 1995, New Mexico Museum of Natural History, Albuquerque, N.M.; and April 15-June 25, 1995, Museum of Science and History, Jacksonville, Fla. The exhibit is called "More Than Meets the Eye," and is accessible to all. It opens with a three-dimensional cross section of the human eye that presents information about eye physiology and diseases. The main exhibition consists of three "environments": home, office, and out and about, which allows sighted guests to experience a typical day in the life of a blind person. The home segment centers on the closet and the kitchen; "office" shows how blind people become fully integrated into an office setting, and "out and about" shows visitors how the blind integrate into the world outside of offices and homes.

HEY, MAC USERS ...

Would you like to have your word processor documents read back to you in a clear, natural voice? With SmartVoice, you can. It reads any highlighted text as well as alert messages, i.e., "printer is out of paper." It comes with a talking calculator, talking clock, 14 voice characters and a 30-day money-back guarantee. It costs $49.95. Documentation is not available in braille. For more information, call Quality Computers at 1-800- 777-3642. Mention code: ACB4.

NEW VIDEO ON THE ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act video is now available from Twin Peaks Press. It spells out what businesses must do to comply with the act, such as what questions can and cannot be asked in interviews and on applications, what to do when remodeling, how to treat disabled employees, etc. It costs $69.95, plus $5 shipping. To order, send your name, address and payment to Twin Peaks Press, P.O. Box 129, Vancouver, WA 98666; phone (206) 694-2462. For credit card orders, call 1-800-637-2256.

INTERNET ON CABLE

Boston residents will soon be able to log on to the Internet through their cable television connections, according to APT News, citing an announcement by Continental Cablevision and Performance Systems International. People will use a PC and a special modem to communicate. The service will be tried in early 1994, and then gradually move to the rest of Continental's franchise areas. PSI hopes to establish contracts with other cable companies as well.

USED EQUIPMENT MATCH

The Used Equipment Clearinghouse is a free service that matches someone who wants to buy a piece of equipment with a person who is selling it. For more information, write in print, braille, tape or IBM ASCII disk to Barbara Mattson, 519 E. Main St. #8, Spartanburg, SC 29302, or phone her at (803) 585-7323.

NO OLD NEWS HERE

A new bimonthly newsletter called "Financing Assistive Technology" is available on disk, cassette and print. For individuals, one year costs $39; one year for an organization, agency or business costs $45. New York purchasers must add applicable sales tax. Make checks or purchase orders payable to Smiling Interface and send it along with your request to: Smiling Interface, P.O. Box 2792, Church Street Station, New York, NY 10008-2792.

MOVING WITH MARGE

"Moving with Marge" is a 50-minute exercise program on cassette tape that has been designed for people of all ages. Side one contains detailed instructions for exercises which, when done regularly, will tone and strengthen the major muscle groups of the body. Side two has a variety of musical selections to do the exercises to. To order, send a check for $7.50 to Lois Howard, 61951 High Hill Rd., Cambridge, OH 43725, or phone (614) 432-2287.

NJ GETS A BOOST

Six New Jersey-based organizations have received $1 million in grant money to help solve some of the state's most pressing health care problems, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The funding was made available to support a range of health care and support services targeting AIDS, substance abuse, adolescent homelessness, home health care for the elderly, sexual abuse of people with disabilities, and the barriers keeping people from getting health care. The grantees are: The New Jersey Women and AIDS Network, The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in collaboration with the New Jersey Department of Health, Stageworks Touring Company's show "Precious Threads," Crossroads Program, Inc., Cadbury Corp., Association for Retarded Citizens' Monmouth Unit, and the New Community Corp. in conjunction with Project HOPE.

HELEN KELLER'S IDEA

On June 27, Helen Keller's birthdate (114 years ago), a national family association for deaf-blind will be launched by a group of parents representing individuals and state organizations throughout the United States. If you are interested in membership, have a question or just want to connect with another parent, call 1-800-255-0411.

BOOKS ON TAPE

There is a growing number of companies offering books on cassette for sale to the public. Blackstone Audio Books sells more than 450 unabridged titles, specializing in history, biography, politics, economics, philosophy and literature; their phone number is (800) 729-2665. Recorded Books Inc. also offers unabridged books on tape. Phone (800) 638-1034 for a free catalog. Books On Tape has an extensive selection of full-length audio books, including best sellers. For a free brochure, call (800) 626-3333. Audio Literature also has a catalog of its books on tape available. Call (800) 841-2665.

GROUP SEEKS RADIO

Friendship Unlimited, a small faith ministry in Malawi, Central Africa, is a group that serves disabled people and is seeking to broaden the scope of its services. One way it seeks to do this is to let the people listen and operate shortwave radios. The group cannot afford to buy its own radio, and is seeking a donated one. The address is: George Mgoola, [spell] Director, Friendship Unlimited, Box 651, Blantyre, [spell] Malawi, Central Africa.

RUSSIAN WATCH

Sadcom International has Russian braille watches available. The watches are purchased directly from the factory in Russia, and cost $30 with a spandex band and gift box, plus $3.95 shipping and handling. To order, send your check or money order to Sadcom International, P.O. Box 625, Woodstock, VA 22664. Allow two to four weeks for delivery.

FOR SALE: Toshiba T1100+ with Artic board and speech, $100. Thiel braille embosser, like new, $8,000. Call Robert Larson at (408) 985-2843, or write him at 2467 Homestead Rd., Santa Clara, CA 95050.

FOR SALE: Five-year-old Visual Tek CCTV. In excellent condition. Asking $850. Call Nino Pesce at (215) 322-4447.

ACB BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Sue Ammeter, Seattle, WA
Ardis Bazyn, Cedar Rapids, IA
Patricia Beattie, Arlington, VA
Michael Byington, Topeka, KS
Christopher Gray, San Jose, CA
John Horst, Wilkes-Barre, PA
Jean Mann, Guilderland, NY
Dick Seifert, Little Rock, AR
Pamela Shaw, Silver Spring, MD
Stephen Speicher, Lincoln, NE
Otis Stephens, Ph.D., Knoxville, TN

BOARD OF PUBLICATIONS

Billie Jean Hill, Chairperson, Arlington, VA
Kim Charlson, Watertown, MA
Mitch Pomerantz, Los Angeles, CA
Edward Potter, Goldsboro, NC
Dana Walker, Montgomery, AL
Ex Officio: Laura Oftedahl, Watertown, MA ACB OFFICERS PRESIDENT SECRETARY LEROY SAUNDERS PATRICIA PRICE 2118 N.W. 21st ST. 5707 BROCKTON DRIVE #302 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73107 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 FIRST VICE PRESIDENT TREASURER CHARLES S. P. HODGE BRIAN CHARLSON 1131 S. FOREST DR. 57 GRANDVIEW AVENUE ARLINGTON, VA 22204 WATERTOWN, MA 02172 CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
ELIZABETH M. LENNON

Return to the Braille Forum Index