THE BRAILLE FORUM is available in braille, large print, half- speed four-track cassette tape and computer disk. Subscription requests, address changes, and items intended for publication should be sent to: Penny Reeder, THE BRAILLE FORUM, 1155 15th St. N.W., Suite 1004, Washington, DC 20005. Submission deadlines are the first of the month.

Those much-needed contributions, which are tax-deductible, can be sent to Patricia Beattie at the same address. If you wish to remember a relative or friend by sharing in the council's continuing work, the national office has printed cards available to acknowledge contributions made by loved ones in memory of deceased people.

Anyone wishing to remember the American Council of the Blind in his/her Last Will and Testament may do so by including a special paragraph for that purpose. If your wishes are complex, you may contact 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.

If you would like to receive "The Braille Forum" via e-mail instead of via U.S. mail, here's what you need to do. Send an e- mail message to [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank. In the body of the message, type the words (without quotes) "subscribe brailleforum-L." Then send the message. To unsubscribe, follow the steps above, substituting the word "unsubscribe" and leaving off the rest of the line. If you need to change e-mail addresses, send an unsubscribe message using your old e-mail address, then follow with a subscribe message using your new e-mail address.

(Editor's Note: The following words are based on the speech which ACB President Paul Edwards delivered to assembled affiliate presidents and representatives at ACB's annual mid-year meeting in Louisville, Ky.)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to look forward to these mid-year reports, which encourage me to pause in the middle of the year and reflect upon what we have accomplished since the last national convention, and also to share with you some of the concerns that have emerged since last July. The Issue of Minimum Wage for Blind Workers

First, I want to describe some of the events that have occurred around minimum wage, and also some of the dilemmas that place ACB in some interesting situations.

Last fall, the National Federation of the Blind began to propose legislation at the national level to require all industries programs that employ people who are blind to assure that anyone who had no other disability except blindness should receive no less than the minimum wage.

Now, those of you who follow our resolutions will know that that viewpoint corresponds essentially to the position that ACB has also taken. So, one of the more interesting things that that action did for us was to lead us to a place where we agreed absolutely with the Federation's suggestion.

Well, in December, Jim Gibbons, who heads National Industries for the Blind, called together the blindness community. The leadership of ACB and NFB were there. Many NIB industries were there, and the General Council of Industries for the Blind had representatives at the meeting. The objective was to figure out a way to assure that the blindness community could take action as a whole. We all wanted to assure that whatever policy we developed would not only protect the rights of blind folks to get the minimum wage, but also give the industries enough time -- especially in light of some of GSA's recent actions -- to develop and implement viable programs which could also pay workers at least the minimum wage.

At that meeting, ACB took the position that, if the blindness community as a whole were prepared to stand together, then we would be comfortable giving National Industries for the Blind an opportunity to try to build consensus within its own industries. Furthermore, we stated that we thought that, in the long run, the interests of the blindness community would be better served by allowing that to happen.

We said very clearly, however, that if an organization within the blindness community chose not to join with us, all bets were off.

I don't think that it will surprise any of you when I say that the National Federation of the Blind chose not to participate in the consensus-building effort that that meeting attempted to forge.

ACB supports minimum wage for blind folks. ACB also supports the building of a strong industry program. We support NIB because, compared with most rehabilitation agencies, NIB agencies and the NIB itself are taking innovative and effective approaches to the rehabilitation of people who are blind which may exist long after rehab itself has gone away.

I want to suggest to you that the role that ACB tries to play is often not merely the role that we can play, and that we're allowed to play. We took a position of support for the Federation's position with regard to minimum wage for folks who are blind. We did this because our resolution said that we should.

Subsequently, we also took the position that, if we are really going to open this Pandora's box, we ought to open it all the way, and take a look at minimum wage across the board. The Blindness Community and ACB's Position in It

The general point that I want to make, and that I want to leave you with here, is that the blindness community as a whole still remains small and still remains fragmented. The ACB's place in that blindness community is becoming more and more important.

The ACB has participated at a leadership level in meetings with regard to separate agencies. We will probably, if we ever get to the place where they're ready to hold the next range of meetings -- actually be hosting meetings on that subject.

However, here again, what we have found is, whereas everyone in the blindness community seems intent upon building consensus, there is one organization within the blindness community that seems more intent on going in its own direction, regardless of what the rest of us believe, and that organization is the National Federation of the Blind.

I say to the National Federation of the Blind, and I say to the blindness community as a whole, we are too small to be divided. We should, and must, stand together when we can.

But, I also say to the National Federation of the Blind and to the blindness community: If our community means anything as a concept, then the blindness community must stand up against organizations that consistently refuse to build consensus. Celebrating Victories

I want to spend just a few minutes talking about the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind. It is important to celebrate the victories that we achieve, and we need to recognize the degree to which the American Council of the Blind has assumed a leadership role in fostering both the separate agency notions of tomorrow, as well as the kinds of attitudes that consumers will have toward their state agencies.

While you will remember that the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind was initially somewhat recalcitrant in becoming involved with us with regard to the Randolph-Sheppard issue, I am pleased to tell you that that organization has now held an initial conference with us and has committed to actually sponsor a major conference that will happen later this year to try to build the Randolph-Sheppard program into the strong program it can be.

That exercise, ladies and gentlemen, is an absolute result of the work that RSVA and the ACB did. We started it. We finished it.

Inside ACB

One of the things that I get to do every two years or so is pull together committees for the American Council of the Blind. This year, I got the officers involved in that activity, and while there were certainly some glitches in that system, our committee lists are now out.

I think these committee lists are representative of our efforts, as an organization, to try to broaden the range of leadership opportunities that are available to our members. Seventeen of the members of committees this year have never served on an ACB committee before. I think that's exciting.

Our ACB committees are formed with members from 35 states, which is pretty broad geographically. Also, each member of our ACB board of directors, including our officers, has been limited to serving on a single committee. So, our intent is to create and to build new leadership, and assure that new people have the opportunity to come up in the national arena. I think this is exciting, and I think it's what ACB needs to be all about.

The American Council of the Blind has completed the last phase of its reorganization, and we have created a new position of financial officer for both the American Council of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind Enterprises and Services. I am pleased to tell all of you that the person who is assuming this new and exalted position is Jim Olsen.

The reorganization is going to enable us to do something else that is exciting: The American Council of the Blind Enterprises and Services is now going to go out and hire a smart, effective, competent, capable, go-getter executive director, who is going to make ACBES immensely rich, which will then make ACB immensely rich!

I Will Not Remain Silent

Now, sadly, I must turn to a subject which has come up in virtually every mid-year and convention report which I have given to this organization since my presidency commenced. If you look back at all of my reports, you will find that a recurrent theme has been my very real concern about increasingly obnoxious attitudes of the general public and of some disabled people, toward disability itself, and, to a greater degree toward blindness, and services for people who are blind. It seems that my whole presidency has been spent trying to justify what I ought not to have to justify. That is, the fact that blind people should, and do, have the right to receive appropriate services, delivered by well-trained individuals, and that those blind people also have the right to choose the kinds of services that they receive, and should not be told by other people the kinds of services they ought to have.

This year is probably a year where, if anything, I am more concerned than I ever have been. In an increasing number of states since my presidency started, the issue of separate services has become an issue for debate. The degree to which small government is shrinking the willingness of states to provide specialized services for people who are blind is an indication to me of one of two things: Either we in the blindness community are still not doing a good enough job of getting the word out, or, alternatively, this is a much larger issue than we initially gave it credit for being. In fact, I think the answer is the latter.

I'd like to suggest a couple of reasons why I believe that's true, and also suggest to you a few concerns that are new.

Last July, there was a gentleman at our convention who was, it seemed to me and some others, crying wolf in the wilderness. This gentleman's name is Charlie Hodge. Last July, Charlie Hodge suggested that we needed to be concerned about the kind of decisions that he felt were going to emerge from the court system with regard to the ADA. He proposed resolutions, which ended up being sent to our lawyers' affiliate for them to look at and make recommendations and send back to us. In fact, Charlie Hodge has certainly been proven more right than I was. While the ADA is still there, it is being challenged more and more, by state governments, by local governments, by national organizations, and by the media.

We need to be concerned over the degree to which the Americans with Disabilities Act is being threatened. We also need to be concerned about the response that the disability community is making to this threat.

I think it's extremely important for all of us to recognize that the Americans with Disabilities Act is important as a symbol. I don't respond often to the question about what the Americans with Disabilities Act has done for people who are blind, because for me that isn't the issue. The issue is, ought there to be a law which protects the civil rights of people who are disabled? And, if the answer to that question is yes, then, since the ADA is the only civil rights law that protects the rights of disabled people, albeit not very well, and albeit not very much, we had best protect that law!

It is not enough, however, to simply protect the law. We must actually begin, I believe, to be more assertive about our needs as people with disabilities.

One thing that has happened over the past several years is that the disability community has retreated into a zone of complacency. If you talk with a number of the leaders of the national disability community about the distortion that happens in the media, about the whittling away of the ADA by congresses and by states, their response tends to be: "Well, we know you're right. But, let's be quiet and careful -- because, if we get too noisy and quarrelsome, they'll take away what we have now."

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't accept that argument.

I can't accept the notion that I can be quiet in a society where 70 percent of people who are blind are unemployed, while the unemployment rate for the general population is 4 percent.

I can't accept the idea that I should be silent about the discrimination that occurs for people with disabilities when the income for people with disabilities is half the income for people without them.

I also will not be silent, ladies and gentlemen, because I'm not convinced that the folks who claim that the best attack is passivity are right. The truth, it seems to me, is that the media and Congress and state governments are able to do with disability what they are doing because disabled people have been silent. It is time for us to stand up and be counted.

The ADA nearly didn't pass. What made the ADA pass were huge truckloads of letters sent by people with disabilities, detailing the kinds of discrimination that made it impossible for them to survive or to be integrated appropriately into the society.

Ten years after the ADA's passage, is that kind of discrimination much less? I think the answer to the question is no.

Have people who are severely disabled benefitted substantially from the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act? One way to find an answer to this question is to ask if the employment level for people with disabilities has changed significantly. The answer is no.

Are people with disabilities more integrated into society? Are there more people with disabilities, for instance, holding management jobs within the private sector? Are there more people with disabilities holding management jobs in state governments? Are there more of us people with disabilities who are actively involved as effective participants within the political process - - e.g., in state legislatures, or at the national level, in Congress? The answer to those questions is no, no, no, no.

Ladies and gentlemen, what do we have to lose by suggesting to the rest of society that, as disabled people, we are tired of it, and we're not going to take it any more!

It is absolutely crucial to recognize that we are not alone. It isn't only people with disabilities who are being threatened by the new attitudes in our society. It's also people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, it's also everyone who is poor, everyone who is under-educated. The philosophy that is rampant in our country at the moment is bound and determined to create a multi-tiered, multi-class society where we will categorically have the haves and the have-nots, and where the have-nots will probably never be able to climb out of the trough the society is throwing them into.

It is up to us whether people with disabilities choose to stay in this trough or demand that we be allowed to climb out. And, I think it's absolutely crucial -- and as President of ACB I intend to take this position from now on -- that I will no longer stand by and allow people to slander persons with disabilities with inaccurate half-truths.

Our executive director will verify that, about a month ago, I called him, absolutely livid about a document that had just been published by the Congress. This particular document had been compiled for use by a Congressional committee that was exploring the degree to which the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the Internet. Whereas there were a number of facts within this document which were accurate, taken as a whole, the document created an atmosphere of fear, created a belief that disabled people were being unfair, and tried at the end to suggest that, were we to make the Internet accessible to people with disabilities, virtually every small web site would have to go out of business. The document was filled with exactly the same kinds of arguments which had been used, 10 years before, by the chambers of commerce and other detractors of disability rights, i.e., that a civil rights law for people with disabilities would make all small businesses go out of business and that all the poorest little businesses would no longer be able to function if the Congress passed this vicious law against American business.

The Congressional document also put forth the ludicrous argument that making the Internet accessible would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of all of the people who are operating Internet sites, because, essentially, in order to make their sites accessible, the argument went, they'd be told what to say, and their freedom of speech would, therefore, be curtailed. What balderdash!

Yet, that kind of argument is effective for a bunch of Americans, who -- if they're persuaded that the flag is at risk, that the Constitution is the issue -- will support elements of policy that they know, deep-down, are inappropriate and wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to say, to the people who publish these half-truths, "Stop it!"

Maybe it's time that we say to newspapers -- and often very capable and competent newspapers, like "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" -- "If you're going to publish articles that talk about what you consider to be inappropriate suits under the ADA, publish the results as well." And, if newspapers won't do this, then we need to begin to launch a campaign of our own. ACB Can Do It!

It's been a pleasure over the last four and a half years -- most days -- to serve as president of the American Council of the Blind. Though I have reported lots of what may be considered negative things in my report this time, I'd also like to share with you my pleasure at the ongoing opportunity that the American Council of the Blind affords me to get to know grass-roots people who are blind from all over the country. I get an opportunity to build a sense within myself of the strength of this organization, by observing regular people doing important things in each local chapter, in each state. Each of us is a part of a huge tapestry. In a very real sense, the American Council of the Blind is the American quilt. We are different, we are varied. Some of us are larger, some of us are smaller, some of us do more, some of us do less, but the whole that we create, ladies and gentlemen, is a consumer organization of people who are blind that has already, in the 40 years it has existed, made a tremendous difference in the lives of blind people, and that is now poised, as we are getting ready to begin the new century, to become the organization that will be the most responsible for creating the future that blind people in our society will have.

In the new millennium, civil rights means the right to stand up and state that you want to discriminate � not with a hood over your head � but with legal papers in hand.

Indeed, in this new millennium, our states and municipalities are asking for court approval as they give new meaning to the old phrase: "You can't sue city hall!"

First, I want to set the legal stage and then turn to my more

fundamental concerns about what these activities really say about what progress has not been made over the past 50 years. Legalizing Bigotry

Two recent cases, which purport to be concerned about preserving the sovereign rights of state governments to be protected from lawsuits, epitomize a contempt for the principles of fairness expressed in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Florida Department of Corrections v. Dickson is an employment discrimination case under Title I of the ADA involving the failure of Florida to promote an individual with a heart condition. Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle is a suit brought by a visually impaired person against an Arkansas city for monetary damages under ADA Title II. The Supreme Court agreed to hear these cases during the current 1999-2000 session. As I was preparing this article, however, both cases were settled -- on the very eve of their hearing before the United States Supreme Court -- perhaps because the politicians in the states which brought the suits began to think twice, in this year of election, about such blatant attempts at sanctioned discrimination.

Nonetheless, in both these cases, as in several others which preceded them and still others which are making their way through the lower courts, questions are being raised about whether a state/local government can be sued under the law if the state or local government entity has not agreed to be sued by waiving its sovereign immunity. This concept of sovereign immunity stems way back in jurisprudence to the notion of not suing the king. Now the states are attempting to apply this concept to mean that states/local governments must give consent to their being sued. Congress, they claim, cannot do it for them when they give litigants the opportunity to sue state and local entities for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The clear trend in recent years has been to limit the ability of citizens to sue states and local governments. Earlier this 1999-2000 term the Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that states could not be sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Last year the Supreme Court in Alden v. Maine held that states could not be sued for minimum wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. These cases followed the court's 1996 decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, in which the court held a state which had not waived sovereign immunity could not be sued in federal court even on an issue involving a federal question.

Legal niceties and foundations of the two ADA cases, Dickson and Alsbrook, could be dissected ad nauseam by people far more qualified than I. But to me there is really one critical basic question in all these cases: Why are we even having this debate?

If the Supreme Court ever holds in some future case that states cannot be sued under ADA�s Titles I and II, it strikes me that we will have gone full circle on civil rights in the past half century. If you go around in a complete circle, what have you accomplished? A Brief History of Civil Rights Laws

Fifty years ago there were no civil rights laws for people with disabilities except for some "White Cane" laws which, as a practical matter, gave lip service, hortatory language and unenforceable rights to people who are visually impaired.

In the 1950s and 1960s, then-majority leader and later President Lyndon B. Johnson and senator and later President John F. Kennedy had to combat "states' rights" arguments raised in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1956 as well as the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Claiming "states' rights" was a polite way of telling the federal government to keep out, leave the issue to the states. Enactment of these two major laws was heatedly fought in extended congressional debate and followed many demonstrations and horror stories, even some public beatings and private incidents of horror courtesy of, among others, the hooded Ku Klux Klan.

In 1973, the Rehabilitation Act came along, complete with the mandate in Section 504 which required that if you received federal funding, you could not discriminate against people with disabilities in program, service or activity. States turned to the federal bureaucrats and said, in essence, "Why not apply that to you, too, if you really care and want to be fair?" Miracle of miracles, Congress agreed and the Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1978 to apply the non-discrimination mandate across the board to the federal executive agencies.

What also happened after the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was that states and local governments amended their own civil rights laws (which had been adopted after the 1964 federal law) to include people with physical handicaps. (Nowadays, we would choose to use a more sensitive word, like "disabilities.")

In fairness it must be noted that, during the 1980s, some states, like Maryland and the District of Columbia, were generally ahead of the federal government in recognizing people who were HIV-positive or had AIDS as covered by the anti- discrimination law. Also, state laws, by being amendments to general civil rights laws, often banned discrimination in places where the public gathered, such as restaurants, hotels, recreation areas and other commercial facilities -- even when the Rehabilitation Act would not apply because there was no federal funding involved.

Then, the great phoenix, the Americans with Disabilities Act, rose in 1990 with mandates not to discriminate in employment, state and local government, public accommodations/commercial facilities and telecommunications.

Now 10 years later the ADA, like other civil rights laws, is under serious attack. Let's look at what is happening. States and local governments are saying in their legal briefs to the Supreme Court that the law does not apply to them. Let their own (state and local) laws apply, they plead. To me this legalese is just a more high-fallutin' way of saying "states' rights" or more bluntly, do unto others (such as the private sector) but not unto me.

Pardon me if I missed something. But I do not believe the state and local laws have the same impact as the national imprimatur and consciousness-raising of the ADA.

Having been fortunate enough to be on the White House lawn when ADA was signed on July 26, 1990, I could not help but feel the sea change of people with disabilities being empowered. Yes, more has been done by the private sector -- some businesses have been putting in ramps, and many are marketing toward people with disabilities. No one doubts there has been progress in the public sector, too.

Does anyone doubt that there is more to be done in both the state/local government area as well as the private sector?

Yet here come the state and local governments strenuously arguing that ADA's Titles I and II do not apply to them, in effect trying to dam up the progress that has been made. If state and local governments really did not want to discriminate against their disabled citizens, then they would not be making these arguments. The practical bottom line of their legal papers is to turn a morally unacceptable act of bigotry into an act that is legally sanctioned. That is not acceptable to me.

What the states are brazenly doing under cover of legal brief is the same as what others did under the white cloak of terror and protestations of states' rights. Only now it is all out in the open -- sadly like too many other aspects of bigotry and hatred. Out in the Open

In fact, bigotry is so out in the open that Chris Core's popular drive-time talk show on Washington, DC's WMAL radio held an extended discussion one recent afternoon about what to do when someone makes a totally offensive, bigoted remark.

In a well-publicized incident earlier this year, a baseball player, John Rocker, made outrageously offensive remarks against virtually all minority groups, including people who have AIDS or are HIV-positive. What were the consequences of his bigotry and intolerance? He got suspended for two weeks and may earn more in one baseball season than the Department of Justice will collect in civil penalties under the ADA during the same period of time.

When a student vandalized a menorah at a local college here, he wound up with community service, not jail time.

Most egregious were the hate killings, which occurred last year, of a gay student in Wyoming and a black man in Texas.

State and local governments need to think about the big picture. What message do the leaders of these governmental bodies send to society by making these arguments in the Supreme Court? They are openly advocating for the right not to be subject to a law which prohibits discrimination. The new weapon of choice for today's bigot is a legal brief, not a billy club. States are seeking to go back to the past when there were no civil rights laws for people with disabilities for them to answer to. Does anyone really believe that there will be less discrimination against people with disabilities if ADA is found unconstitutional in its application to state and local governments? Will the private sector be more or less voluntarily compliant with ADA if it sees ADA being held unconstitutional (even if the precise legal application is different)?

States and local governments need to realize the catalytic impact, not only the legal issues, of these cases. If ADA's Titles I and II are found unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, we will take one giant leap backward and will reinforce the already too prevalent bigotry in today's society.

LBJ and JFK must be spinning in their graves. Frankly, Scarlett, not enough people give a damn!

One of the privileges of being ACB's executive director that I appreciate most is having an opportunity to visit with thousands of our members while I travel around the country on ACB business. There are always great people to meet and experiences to share. On my latest trip, I met up with a number of sighted travelers who helped me to understand just how close we all are to each other as human beings. I realized once again that blindness presents no impediment to human community, for blindness presents no barriers to the human spirit. Here's what happened.

First, I sat next to a woman from the midwest who told me how her father had been interned in a detention camp in the United States because he was of Japanese descent. As she continued her story, she explained that she hadn't found out until she was 30 years old about her entire half family on the west coast about whom nobody had ever spoken. As we talked, she unraveled a life story that had given her great joy and pain and how she was trying to reconcile all the things that had happened. When that leg of the trip was over and she went off for a connecting flight, I could not help but think how good a person she was and how grateful I am to ACB for having had all the experiences I have had that allowed me to connect with her in a way that really helped.

Later on the way home, I met a man who was traveling with his sons. They were going off to the wilderness of New Mexico to re- create the journey of his grandfather, who had staked a claim to four gold mines before New Mexico had even become a state. While I wished him and his sons well in their great adventure and shared their hope of finding gold, we all acknowledged that the gold of a family history re-lived was the most enriching treasure of all. The utter joy and anticipation in their voices was proof positive of the truly once-in-a-lifetime experience they were excited to share.

Last, among other folks I had the pleasure of meeting on this trip, there was the woman who was about to celebrate her 50th wedding anniversary. She told me about her children and the places their family had been. She also shared her sad story about a son who had passed away after sight loss. He had not adjusted to blindness, she said, as well as I must have. She said he had taken an experimental treatment that had not worked. I knew what she meant and shared the space she needed to let it be. At the end of that leg of the trip, the would-be family gold miners and the woman and her husband whose son had passed away all bid me farewell as friends who had shared a short but meaningful time together. It struck me how many lives we just fly over on those planes and though we travel many paths, we are so closely knit as people.

I write this because all of us in ACB can give back to our larger community because we have had the opportunities to share so much with each other. Yes, our strengthening together is a well from which refreshing waters flow for each other and for a world so much in need of our shared wisdom. In the end, is it not our willingness to build futures together in ACB that is the foundation of building real integration in our society?

Thank you, ACB, for having a philosophy that reaches out from our organizational strength to build a better world for everyone, and thanks to all of you for giving me the chance to represent such a fine way of viewing America, whether on the ground or 30,000 feet up in the air.

During the week of the ACB convention (July 1-8, 2000), many exciting tours will be offered. We encourage you to pre- register, so that you will be assured of getting the specific tours that interest you.

For information about the pre-convention tours, look back at your March "Braille Forum" at the article, "After the Winds of Winter, Kentucky Blooms." Below, find information about tours which will be taking place during convention week. Please note that, because we are still in the process of confirming final arrangements, minor adjustments in schedules may still take place. But, for right now, here are our plans:

Louisville City Tours: Saturday and Sunday, July 1 and 2

A guide will ride with you on the comfortable, air- conditioned motor coach to provide a detailed narrative as you travel through the historic neighborhoods of Louisville. You may feel as though you are traveling through time, as you jaunt from the historic West Main Street to the downtown area with its contemporary architecture. The guide will explain how this frontier fort on the river moved from a small outpost to a sleek, modern city. There will be a brief shopping opportunity at the Kentucky Derby Museum Gift Shop, located adjacent to legendary Churchill Downs. After you have traveled through the city, you can relax and enjoy a delightful lunch on the banks of the Ohio River at Captain's Quarters Restaurant.

Locust Grove: Thursday, July 6

Experience the story of George Rogers Clark and the beginning of Louisville. Clark's final home was an 18th century plantation set on 55 acres of rolling hills east of Louisville. This plantation was visited by three presidents, and was the stopping point for the Lewis and Clark Expedition before they returned to Washington to report their findings. Special programs will offer visitors a first-hand experience of the plantation and the items produced there.

The Belle of Louisville Riverboat Cruise: Wednesday, July 5

Step back in time aboard the historic Belle of Louisville, our nation's oldest operating river steamboat. As you board you will be entertained by the Belle's old time calliope. With a mighty whistle blast, your voyage will leave the dock at 8 p.m. and return you to modern civilization at 11 p.m. During the cruise, you can listen to the band, walk around the boat, dance or just relax and enjoy the sounds of the river and the gentle movement of this old sternwheeler.

Frankfort, the State Capitol History Center: Monday, July 3

The city of Frankfort, Kentucky, is only an hour away from Louisville. The capitol building, which is modeled after our national capitol, sits next to one of the nation's most impressive governor's mansions. A fresh new History Center houses artifacts that you may touch as you listen to audio descriptions. Under the "Domes of Silence," Kentucky's most famous historical person, Daniel Boone, rests in peace at the top of the cliffs overlooking the Kentucky River Valley as he requested.

American Printing House for the Blind: July 2 through 7

Take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to explore the American Printing House for the Blind and the Kentucky School for the Blind, both of which will be open for ACB conventioneers! There will be three areas to visit: the museum, the studio and the production area. In the museum, you will learn about the reading and writing systems which existed before braille. You will be able to touch systems that you may have never even known existed. And of course, there is a famous section about Helen Keller.

In the studio, you may hear -- and be only inches away from - - some of your favorite readers as they record yet another book for your enjoyment.

In the production area, you will smell the ink as the large- print books are being printed. At another point you will feel the vibrations of the presses as they punch out thousands of braille pages. And in a few more steps you will hear the whirring of the tape duplicating machines as they make hundreds of copies of this year's most widely read books on tape. Tour groups will be limited to 45 members, so each person will be able to have a real hands-on experience. Be sure to check out your registration forms for specific departure times for APH tours.

Lions Eye Foundation: Thursday, July 6

Tours of the Lions Eye Foundation are still in the planning phase. We anticipate two opportunities, toward the end of convention week, for you to tour this intriguing research facility, which is funded by the Lions International. Come see the work being done for good eye health and learn about possible sight restoration procedures.

Louisville Slugger Museum: Wednesday, July 5 and Friday, July 7

Have you ever seen a baseball bat 120 feet long and 9 feet in diameter? Yes, that Louisville Slugger really exists at 800 West Main, along with a baseball glove that is 10 feet long, 9 feet wide, 4 feet tall and weighs 15 tons! All these and many more amazing icons of baseball are out in the open where you can touch them. In the case of the glove, you can climb onto it or even crawl inside it if you like.

How would you like to hold a baseball bat that Babe Ruth actually swung? Yes, you can do that and much more. This tour will fill your senses with thrills and excitement every step of the way.

At the beginning of the tour, you may order a personalized bat. Depending on the model you select, you may be able to pick up your bat at the end of the tour, or it may be shipped to your home.

You will hear about baseball's greatest hits and hitters and hold some of the bats they used. There are life-size models of some of the greatest pitchers, hitters, catchers and players, and they can be touched.

Beyond the museum is the plant where you can take a guided tour and learn how a tree is turned into a baseball bat whose next stop could be a major league ball game. At the end of the tour you will receive a free 17-inch Louisville Slugger mini bat as your souvenir.

The Derby Dinner Theater: Saturday, July 8

The Derby Dinner Theater will be the site for a wonderful evening of food and entertainment. You may select your food from the buffet line or make your selections from a menu of buffet items and ask a volunteer to serve you.

Because the theater is in the round, you will never be more than two or three rows away from the action. The Sunshine Boys will be playing on the night of your visit.

Legally blind artists who reside in the USA may enter a maximum of two original, ready-to-display works of art in any of the following media: painting, drawing, printmaking, collage, or sculpture. Participants will cast ballots to select the best of show. Artists may enter up to two works of art in the above categories not to exceed two entries. Each entry should be labeled with the artist's name and title of the work, and labeled to indicate orientation. All works of art must be ready to hang or display-ready.

Send your letter of intent to enter to Elsie Monthei, 1304 39th St., Des Moines, IA 50311, or call her at (515) 277-0442. Letters of intent must be received by May 2. Information about your work should include media, size, title, and dimensions. We need to make braille labels, so a short description which can be transcribed into braille should be included. Delivery and Return of Art Work

If you plan to attend the national convention, you can bring your work with you. You must pick up your work and pack it yourself for return home.

If you intend to submit a mailed entry, the return Federal Express fee should be included to return your work to you. Don't forget to also include the cost of insuring those items which you want us to mail back to you.

Your works should be insured and shipped to: Elsie Monthei, The Galt House, 140 N. Fourth Street, Louisville, KY 40202, or hand delivered to her at the Galt House. The shipping deadline is June 30; hand delivery, July 2.

Entry fees

All entrants will be charged an entry fee of $10 to cover the display costs. Entry fees will not be returned if an artist does not display his/her artwork.

Prizes, sales and pick-up

The art exhibition will be held on July 4. An artists� reception will be held that evening. The winners will be notified that day, and awards will be given.

All reasonable care will be given to objects in the exhibition. Friends In Art will insure works accepted at the marked sales price or included insured value. Coverage is for the time the works are on exhibit. Insurance does not cover the object in transit, or works unclaimed after the convention. Works not claimed or picked up by July 6 will be treated as gifts to Friends In Art.

Sales are encouraged. No commission will be charged by Friends In Art. Friends In Art will not act as agent. All sales must be negotiated by participants. Agreement

Submission of an entry to this exhibition shall constitute agreement with all conditions in this application. Friends In Art reserves the right to reproduce works for publicity purposes.

Note: Works not ready for exhibition or display ready can be withheld from the exhibit. The names of show participants may be published in "The Braille Forum."

ENTRY REGISTRATION FORM

1: ARTIST:____________________________________________________

STREET ADDRESS_____________________________________________

CITY ___________________________ STATE___________ ZIP___________

PHONE HOME_________________ WORK_________________________

MEDIA _______________________________________________________

TITLE ________________________________________________________

__________________ ASKING PRICE _______________ NOT FOR SALE

2: ARTIST ____________________________________________________

STREET ADDRESS ____________________________________________

CITY __________________________ STATE ____________ ZIP__________

PHONE HOME_________________ WORK_________________________

MEDIA _______________________________________________________

TITLE _________________________________________________________

_____________________ ASKING PRICE _______________ NOT FOR SALE

Return this form by May 2 to Elsie Monthei, 1304 39th St., Des Moines, IA 50311.

(Editor's Note: This is a second article in a four-part series about one person's experience of retiring one faithful guide dog and learning to love another. Look for the next installment in Sarah's story later this summer.)

I was very tired as I boarded the plane in Indianapolis on September 25, 1999. I had not slept well the night before. I had been packing instead of sleeping. Now I was just hoping for a smooth, uneventful flight to Newark. Maybe I could catch a few winks while we were in the air.

Once the flight took off, I got what I had hoped for. I slept so deeply that I didn't even realize we had landed until I heard the engine become quiet and the captain turn off the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign.

In Newark, I expected to be met by a driver who would take me directly to the Seeing Eye in Morristown, N.J. I waited about half an hour before he located me, and the uncertainty caused quite a bit of anxiety. When he located me, he told me that he was also meeting another student. I was glad to have company on the way to the Seeing Eye.

Many things had changed since my previous trip to the school, the most noticeable of which for me was the fact that this time, each student had his or her own room. I wasn't sure whether I would like this arrangement or not. In the end, I decided that it was a positive change. After all, I could usually find someone to talk to in one of the lounges.

The other major change was that dogs were now given to us on Monday instead of Sunday. Several of us complained about this, and the students at my table tried to convince our instructor to bring us our dogs early. Of course, our pleas didn't work. We were given an opportunity to practice obedience with some dogs -- not our own -- on Sunday afternoon, and this appeased most of us. However, one student stated emphatically at Sunday dinner, "You know I won't be able to sleep tonight!"

Monday finally came, and we all went to our rooms after lunch to wait. I was in the middle of reminiscing about my first meeting with Elli when my instructor knocked quietly on my door. I opened it excitedly, and there she stood with my dog -- just far enough away that I would have to follow them down to the lounge for the meeting. I did this anxiously, and Dori, my new black Labrador retriever, responded to me with much licking and tail-wagging. My instructor commented that she had never seen Dori "this animated."

I had already determined in my mind that this training was going to be different in several ways from my training with Elli. I had learned a lot from mistakes I had made with Elli, and I intended to keep those lessons in mind. The first thing I wanted to do was to ensure the best possible bond between myself and this new dog. It started with our first contact.

Interacting with Dori was not always easy. I had much less energy than I had had when I trained with Elli and was also in poor health. I had to unlearn some bad habits. I also found that Dori required a different style of interaction than Elli had. I struggled a great deal with this during the first few days and realized that I was having difficulty emotionally with correcting her because of certain regrets I had about the ways in which I had handled Elli.

I understood the reality of this when Lucas Franck, who had trained me with Elli, asked me how I was enjoying Dori. "She's awesome," I said, "but I feel guilty saying that."

"Why?" he asked. "Elli's awesome, too. Elli's old and awesome. Dori's young and awesome. You're young and awesome, and you need a dog who's young and awesome. God designed this so you could enjoy more than one dog. So if you feel guilty, you talk to God."

He was right. Elli was a wonderful girl. Elli is a wonderful girl. And so is Dori. But if I allowed my guilt about things that happened incorrectly or didn't happen at all with Elli to control my relationship with Dori, we would be getting off to a very bad start.

From that moment on, I was at peace with my decision to retire Elli and learned to communicate my expectations to Dori in the ways which were appropriate for her temperament. Much of our training after that went very smoothly.

We had been told that we would have a fire drill on Friday at 5 p.m. Each of us had been shown where the various fire exits were in the building. We were all prepared for the drill. We were not prepared for the fire alarm to sound at midnight on Tuesday night. I was still awake, writing in my journal. I hurried downstairs and outside with Dori. I was amazed at my ability to maintain my composure, but I lost my bearings in the stairwell, which had a number of places where I had to turn.

The alarm was a false alarm. However, we all stood outside for some 30 minutes until the firemen came to investigate. We were told that they were required to come anytime there was an alarm. Some of us laughed and joked about the incident. Others grumbled about the loss of sleep and the rain.

I had just climbed into bed and was drifting off to sleep when the alarm sounded again. Tired and annoyed, I made the trip back outside with Dori and all my classmates for another 30-minute wait in the rain. I didn't laugh this time, and neither did many of my classmates.

There were three more alarms during the next two days. It was finally discovered that some of the fire-detection sensors were malfunctioning. Needless to say, we did not have the scheduled fire drill on Friday.

Days in training were long, beginning at 5:30 and ending with an 8:00 trip outside for the dogs' benefit before we had some free time. I enjoyed my time there, just as I had the last time I was in Morristown. I spent quite a bit of my free time using the Technology Center to learn about Windows and to correspond with friends via e-mail. I sent frequent reports about my experiences to my parents, friends, and other family members. When I was not in the Tech Center, I napped, read, or spent time talking and playing games with my classmates. I also took occasional walks on the leisure path with classmates; alone; and once even with Rachel, my former classmate, who had come to visit with her guide, who was still working at 10 years of age.

Having visitors while I was in class was a new experience for me. During my training with Elli, I had come from Texas, and most of my friends lived in Texas. While in training I had been introduced to telecommunications for the first time, and since then I had become active on the Internet. One of the ways I had put my interest in the Internet to good use was to start an e- mail-based discussion list for parents of blind and visually impaired children. One of the families from the list visited me while I was in class. I enjoyed having some contact with �the real world.� Life at the Seeing Eye is not very natural. Beds are made for us. Meals are cooked for us. Schedules are planned and very strictly adhered to. I found that sitting with my visitors helped to remind me that I was preparing for re-entry into a life that I often felt I had left far away when I came to training.

The day of departure finally arrived. Thursday, October 14, was a bittersweet day for me. My instructor took me to the airport that morning. As we walked through the airport, she commented that Dori looked "classy, even though she doesn't know where she's going." I was proud.

We checked in and sat down to wait for the plane to arrive. My instructor asked if she might say goodbye to Dori. I didn't mind this at all. I knew that there was still a special bond between them, evidenced by Dori's tendency to become distracted whenever the instructor was passing us in the hallway.

My instructor knelt down beside Dori and began talking affectionately to her. "I want you to be a good girl," she said. Then she used what had become Dori's nicknames when she was disobedient. "Don't be Doris or Dorothy. Just Dori, all the time." I smiled to myself. It was almost as if she was giving Dori instructions for life.

The plane arrived, and I left my instructor standing at the gate. I was now in "the real world," on my way home.

When it comes to the battle over enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Central Maryland Council of the Blind in Baltimore, Md. takes no prisoners. CMCB is the Greater Baltimore chapter of the American Council of the Blind, and this group of about 70 members has been actively engaged in several interesting ADA compliance battles within the past two years.

One of these issues, a traffic circle known as the Towson Roundabout, became a chapter project in the fall of 1997 after CMCB member Phil Guntner filed a complaint with the United States Department of Justice alleging that the construction of this traffic circle in a highly congested urban environment created serious safety and diminished access problems for blind, disabled and elderly pedestrians. In this project, traffic signals had been removed so that traffic could continuously move through the roundabout. The Maryland State Highway Administration argued that blind pedestrians could cross these busy streets at designated crossings simply by holding out their canes and stepping off the curb. Parker F. Williams, Director of the State Highway Administration, expressed the view his agency had made it safer for blind pedestrians. In his view, all we had to do was hold out a cane or step off the curb with our guide dogs, and drivers in all lanes would stop to allow us to cross the street.

The membership of the chapter recognized the inherent foolishness of the state's position, and in November 1997 voted to support Phil's complaint by filing a second complaint on behalf of the chapter. We argued that blind pedestrians had a safe method for crossing these busy streets by crossing at intersections where the flow of moving vehicles was controlled by traffic signals. Now, federal dollars were being used to make these intersections less accessible by not only removing these traffic signals but creating a barrier of continuously moving traffic which made it impossible for blind pedestrians to safely move across the streets. We argued it was the equivalent of having an environment which contained curb cuts and then removing the curb cuts. Under this argument, we contended that the federal dollars were being used to make the neighborhood less accessible and much more dangerous, and this decision violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Unfortunately, the matter was referred to the Federal Highway Administration to conduct an investigation. Chapter leaders suggested that asking federal highway administrators to investigate a civil rights complaint filed by blind pedestrians was the equivalent of asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. Our doubts regarding the objectivity of the Federal Highway Administration proved to be accurate. In 25 words or less, that decision suggested that the implementing regulations dealt with such matters as curb cuts, etc. Therefore, the Maryland State Highway Administration's actions did not violate any regulations. The decision failed to address our diminished access or safety concerns at all.

This apparent defeat may yet be turned into a significant victory. Just a few weeks after the shortsighted decision issued by the Federal Highway Administration, the United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board decided to establish a committee to evaluate whether there is a need to make new regulations designed to protect the access needs of disabled pedestrians who are not in wheelchairs. ACB has a representative on that committee, so we are eagerly awaiting further developments.

In anticipation that there will be some positive regulations stemming from the work of this committee, former American Council of the Blind of Maryland president Gary Legates sent a letter to Governor Glendening in Annapolis asking him to declare a moratorium on the construction of new traffic circles in Maryland.

On a second ADA compliance issue, the chapter has been pressuring the Maryland Mass Transit Administration to comply with the ADA by making stop announcements on its fixed route service. This effort has been expanded to include paratransit issues, because on June 29, 1999, Ronald Freeland, Administrator of MTA, announced that beginning on July 1, all paratransit applicants and all re-certification customers would be required to take a functional test to measure ambulatory skills and cognitive ability. If blind paratransit applicants were to pass these tests, then MTA would deny their eligibility to receive paratransit services. Freeland was prepared to take this action even though a survey conducted by CMCB demonstrated that only about 15 percent of fixed route bus operators were complying with the stop announcement program.

The chapter responded in a decisive manner once again. On August 30, 1999, we filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Transportation over the stop announcement issue and the new paratransit certification policy. The stop announcement issue is fairly clear. Bus operators are not making required announcements on a consistent basis, so MTA is violating federal law. The paratransit issue is clear also. The accessibility standard to be applied to blind customers is not whether we have sufficient ambulatory skills or cognitive abilities to use the bus system. One of the accessibility standards which applies to blind customers is whether the bus operator is providing us with information which is sufficient to make it possible for blind travelers to use the system (the stop announcements required by the ADA). If stop announcements are not being made, then we are eligible for paratransit service. Currently the investigation has been assigned to the Civil Rights Office in the Federal Transit Administration.

In a related development, the National Association for Accessible Transportation has filed a suit again the Maryland Mass Transit Administration regarding their failure to call out bus stops. Stay tuned for further developments.

This active chapter has also been working with Baltimore city and Maryland state election officials to make it possible for more blind voters to vote without assistance. We are making substantial progress in Baltimore, and with each election, more voters in Baltimore are using the new voting machines there without assistance.

The chapter has been helping the national office with a Department of Justice complaint over the refusal by Maryland State Highway Administration officials to install accessible pedestrian signals at various intersections throughout the state. We are complaining as loudly as we can about a decision by the State of Maryland to challenge the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. These projects are in the early stages, however.

You can understand why the chapter is proud of its effort to change the world with ACB. Undoubtedly, this effort will continue under the leadership of newly elected president Joann Kucik and vice president Gene Spurrier. CMCB is making a real difference in the lives of blind people living in the city by the Chesapeake Bay.