                        THE BLIND CALIFORNIAN


                      Quarterly Magazine of the

                   CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND


Spring 1992                Volume XXXVI          Number 2

                            Published in
                 Braille, Cassette, and Large Print

                     Robert J. Acosta, President
                            818-998-0044

                          EXECUTIVE OFFICES

                        8700 Reseda Boulevard
                              Suite 208
                        Northridge, CA 91324
                            818-349-2636
                            800-221-6359

                       SACRAMENTO AREA OFFICE 
                             Cid Urena 
                    1399 Sacramento Avenue Sp 25
                           Bryte, CA 95605
 
                           BAY AREA OFFICE
                            Donald Queen
                         648 Kearney Street
                        El Cerrito, CA 94530

                       EDITOR:  Maria E. Lopez
                       3925 East Sixth Street
                        Los Angeles, CA 90023
                            213-268-4526
  
     Please send all address changes to the Executive Offices in
Northridge. 
                     CCB PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE


     Sue Staley, Chairperson, 14144 Burbank Blvd. 4, Van Nuys, CA 91401 (818)
989-2137 

     David E. Weddle, 4058 Moore Street, Los Angeles, CA 90066

     Winifred Downing, 1587 38th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

     Christopher Gray, 549 F Giuffrida Avenue, San Jose, CA 95123

     Cherrie Handy Pomerantz, 1344 North Martel Avenue, 102, Los Angeles, CA
90046

     Cathy Schmitt, 167 Rockwood Street, Irvine, CA 92714

     Connie Skeen, 3250 Maple Avenue, Oakland, CA 94602


                          ----------------


Nonmembers are requested and members are invited to pay a yearly
subscription fee of $10 toward the printing of The Blind Californian.

If you or a friend would like to remember the California Council of the Blind
in your will, you can do so by employing the following language:

"I give, devise, and bequeath onto the California Council of the Blind, a
nonprofit charitable organization in California, the sum of $---- (or
----) to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind persons."

If your wishes are more complex, you may have your attorney  communicate
with the Northridge office for other suggested forms.  Thank you.
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


FROM THE EDITOR'S DISK, by Maria E. Lopez  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

REPORT FROM HEADQUARTERS, by Robert J. Acosta  . . . . . . . . . . 2

HISTORY OF THE ORIENTATION CENTER FOR THE BLIND
     by Allen jenkins  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OUT OF THE DOGHOUSE
     by Cherrie Handy Pomerantz  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

THE TAINTER CONFIRMATION STORY
     by Robert J. Acosta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

OPENING REMARKS OF BILL TAINTER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

FAREWELL TO A FRIEND, by George Fogarty  . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

FROM THE WORKPLACE, by Mitchell Pomerantz  . . . . . . . . . . . .43

THE STUDENTS' PERSPECTIVE: "Charlotte's Web"
     by Kenneth Frasse   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

BULLETIN BOARD, by Winifred Downing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

THE STEVEN HAZZARD STORY, 
     by Robert J. Acosta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

GDUC POSITION PAPER:  Issues Surrounding Mr. Steven Hazzard
     by Cherrie Handy Pomerantz                                   58

AROUND THE STATE AND NATION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
                      FROM THE EDITOR'S DISK 

                          by Maria E. Lopez


This year we are celebrating the five-hundredth  anniversary of the
discovery of America which offers me an opportunity to talk about a book
that I have been reading lately.  This 16-volume book is the  history of
Mexico written in Spanish braille.  It was given to me recently and I have
really enjoyed reading every page of it.  This history book covers from the
first settlers in America to the early 1900's.  Because of space limitation
here, I plan to share with you in the next issue of The Blind Californian
some excerpts from my history book about the most interesting and
important events that happened in the last five centuries.

Speaking of history, I earnestly recommend that you read the two articles
submitted for this edition, the History of the Orientation Center for the
Blind and the biography of our beloved Robert Campbell.  Included are also
two articles of interest which give us a complete account of the William
Tainter confirmation and the Steven Hazzard story.  And naturally, remember
to read the regular and informative columns which complete this striking
edition made possible by all of you fine contributors. 

Since we'll be seeing each other in our coming CCB Spring Convention, you
will have the opportunity to give me your helpful recommendations and
comments regarding my editing of the BC.  Also please keep in mind that the
deadline for submitting articles and other information for the Summer issue
is June 1.  

In closing, I offer you the following thought by Sir Winston Churchill, who
once remarked, "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we
give." 

                          ----------------

                     REPORT FROM HEADQUARTERS

                         by Robert J. Acosta


>From the overwhelming praise for the work of our new editor, I can only
conclude that The Blind Californian continues to be a great success. 
Congratulations, Maria!
 
January began with a bang in the offices of the California Council of the
Blind as Kathleen Dodge, our Director of Development, began working
earnestly on our participation in the nationally famous Los Angeles 26-mile
Marathon to be held on March 1.  As you know, Sharleen Wills, an official
runner in this Marathon, will represent the Council.  Her challenging
achievement makes the CCB truly proud to have members like her as role
models.

You are cordially invited to join us at the CCB Spring convention to be held
at the Capitol Plaza Holiday Inn, 300 J Street, Sacramento, phone (916) 446-
0100, during the weekend of May 28-31.  Room rates will be $55 for single and
double occupancy, so please be sure to make reservations no later than April
30.  Actually, on May 27, a reception will be held honoring the California
State Legislature and featuring a band directed by Senator Ralph Dills and
other legislators.  This reception will be held on the sixth floor of the
Capitol building from 5 to 7 p.m.  All Council members are welcome.  We have
reserved 40 rooms for Wednesday night May 27.

In another part of this issue, I have written an article on the Steven
Hazzard story and I am pleased to inform our readers that on January 16,
Steven recovered his guide dog Starsky and that everything is going well. 
The CCB and the Guide Dog Users of California also made a presentation on
this matter before the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind on February
28.  

In this issue I have written another article entitled "The Tainter
Confirmation Story".  This article demonstrates the willingness of the CCB
to work constructively to improve services for blind Californians.  We do
not seek to be negative merely for the sake of being negative; therefore, we
look forward to productive years in our relationship with the Director.  
For those who have not heard my taped release sent to all CCB chapters, I am
reporting that I shall not be a candidate for President next Fall, but I am
supporting Mr. John Lopez for the Council's Presidency.  John is currently
President of our East Los Angeles Chapter CCB.  This agreement was reached
in consultation with First Vice President Mitchell Pomerantz, who will not
be a candidate for his current position, and with Board member John Lopez;
therefore, I will run for First Vice President in order to assist the new
President.  It is important that we understand this transition of leadership
for it is our high water mark for the Council.  The time is right, I believe,
to give another individual a chance to be the President.  I thank all of you
for your great support and sincerely hope that our membership will elect
John Lopez for President and Robert Acosta for First Vice President.  

                          ----------------


          HISTORY OF THE ORIENTATION CENTER FOR THE BLIND 

                          by Allen Jenkins 


OCB celebrated its 40th anniversary in October 1991.  The following article
gives a brief summary of how the Orientation Center began and the nature of
its work from 1951 to the present.

                            METAMORPHOSIS

Shortly after the Civil War, a home and sheltered workshop for the blind was
established "near the city of Oakland".  The state assumed responsibility
for the operation of what was commonly referred to as "The Home" during the
1880's and continued the operation of this facility with no fundamental
change in either its purposes or practices until 1951.

>From a report to The Home's Board of Directors in June 1899, we learn that
there were 106 "inmates" who, in good times, earned from seven to eight
dollars per month.  There were 110 "inmates" at the Home for the Blind in 1951
when the Orientation Center was established by an act of the legislature
and superimposed on the operation of The Home.  The assessment of the
capacities of blind persons together with public attitudes toward the blind
were clearly and poetically stated in the 1899 report of the President of the
Board.

"The law authorizes the President to communicate to this Board the
condition of the institution.  In pursuance of that statutory requirement, I
submit the following report:

"The law requires this to be an institution in which the adult blind may be
taught mechanical trades adapted to their condition, and in which, under
specified regulations, they may practice those handicrafts, and receive pay
therefor.  The men who made the law had been made aware of the history of
such institutions and the century of experiment in them leading to adoption
of such handicrafts as were suited to the blind.  They were also aware that
because of the difference in productive power between a blind mechanic who
learns his trade in adult age, and one with all his faculties who learns it
in his youth when mind and hand are nimble, these institutions are never
self-supporting.  Therefore there is no statutory requirement that this
shall be, and no management however expert can ever make it so.  Yet, these
institutions effect a distinct and useful public economy.  Without them a
large majority of the adult blind, being dependent, would become an entire
charge upon public charity, lose their sense of manhood and self-respect
and would be simply the most melancholy and pitiful recruits to the ranks
of the wretched and distressed and their maintainance (sic) in that
sorrowful condition would cost the tax-payers much more than the cost of
their maintainance (sic) here.  When we turn from the financial to the
humane view of it, every instinct of philanthropy rises to testify for these
institutions.  The greatest happiness that can fill the darkened zone of the
blind is occupation, the opportunity to work with their hands and the right
to feel that they are contributing members of the community.

"Upon taking charge of this institution we find that for a long time it has
not fulfilled the requirements of the law.  The shops are long closed.  The
blind have not been taught a handicraft.  The unfortunate inmates have been
denied the right to find happiness in work.  They have been deprived of the
earnings which would clothe them in comfort and have been made to feel the
full burden of their blindness and suffer with insufficient clothing and
shelter."

Here follows a detailed accounting of economic ills, misappropriation and
mismanagement concluding with . . . "Taking the money earned by the blind to
pay a Superintendent and employes (sic) with their eyesight, while the
sightless laborers who earned it are left unpaid for their labor and in
consequence have shivered ill clad in the chilly air of two winters, was an
act that can have no stronger condemnation than goes with the simple
statement of it."

After further elaboration of woes, the report continues:  "In short, we are
charged with the duty of raising the wreck. It will require the patience and
industry of the inmates, the great experience and proficiency of Supt. 
Sanders and the earnest sympathy and unanimous action of the Board.  The
recovery will be slow.  In place of the surplus left in 1895, we have a large
deficit.  In place of advance orders we have a lost market.  In place of
abundant raw material we have empty storerooms.

"Gov.  Gage, aware of these conditions and with a whole hearted purpose to
make this institution fulfill its function of mercy and kindness to the
blind and helpless, asks us to aid him.  Like all men in authority he must go
amonst (sic) the shoals and quicksands, be misunderstood and
misrepresented, but let it be long remembered that here he has stood up,
seeing for those who are sightless, walking in the light for those who grope
in the darkness, and with a kind heart has felt for those who need friends
and who can give him no reward except the prayers of the poor. . . . I am sure
we have all accepted the trust in the spirit of thoughtfulness and good
heart in which the Governor has commissioned us, and I believe that working
together in that spirit we will redeem the institution
to its former high estate."

Shortly after the turn of the century, a number of blind Californians
developed a vision of the future in which the blind would speak for
themselves rather than letting seeing persons with the best of goodwill
grope in their behalf in the darkness of ignorance of the needs and
potential of blind persons.  These people began an organized effort to
improve the lives of blind people through self-organization and self-
expression, leading to increased education, the establishment of employment
opportunities, and public information resulting in social acceptance. 
Various elements of this movement came together in 1934 and established the
California Council of the Blind (CCB) .  Following World War II, the CCB  and
its supporters vigorously pushed for the establishment of a residential
program for the adult blind which would provide the kind of encouragement,
stimulation and training that would lift such persons from the depths of
isolation, despondency and dependence and return them to society as
positive, participating and self-supporting equals.  In 1949 the legislature
began joint interim committee studies which resulted in legislation in 1951
that phased out the Home for the Blind and established the Orientation
Center for the Blind.  For several years The Home and the Orientation Center,
though diametrically opposed to each other in concept, managed to coexist
in the same facility.  In 1962, the site where the Home and the Orientation
Center functioned was taken over by the State Division of Highways.  The
permanent residents, or "inmates", were moved to another facility and the
construction of a new facility to house the Orientation Center was
authorized and begun.

With the establishment of the Orientation Center in 1951, the blind were no
longer to spend their lives in the custody of others, but were to be given
short-term, intensive training in a residential program designed to return
such persons to their communities as self-supporting, fully participating
and contributing individuals--a part of, not apart from, society.

The Orientation Center is a 24-hour-per-day, seven-day-a-week program
which offers a blind person an opportunity to be taken from an environment
in which all too frequently an individual lives under a tyranny of kindness,
not permitted to move about freely or to engage in any number of other
activities because they are perceived to be either dangerous or beyond the
capacity of a blind person to perform.  The blind individual is likely to
share in these very same fears and conceptions, or rather misconceptions,
about blindness.  Through training and encouragement at the Center, away
from an environment of defeatism and dependency, the student is given an
opportunity to develop skills and regain self-confidence.  Upon his arrival
at the Center, the student is exposed to other students who are blind, most
of whom are advanced in their training, so that the newcomer's
preconceptions of the meaning of blindness are immediately challenged and
rebuffed.  This factor alone is of considerable importance in the
constructive adjustment of any blind person, most especially of those
persons who are newly blinded.

The Center provides daily instruction which includes:

Mobility:  Blind persons learn to walk and travel safely and independently
wherever they wish to go.

Communication Skills: After the loss of sight a person must find new ways to
read and write--for most this means learning Braille and how to use a
typewriter.  The Center also offers an introduction to computer operations
with adaptive programs.

Daily Living Skills: A blind person learns to perform with ease ordinary
tasks that once seemed difficult--tasks such as dialing a telephone,
telling time, sorting money, dressing appropriately, applying makeup,
combing hair and polishing shoes.  The staff teaches blind persons how to
perform these and other usual, routine, daily activities with confidence,
competence and efficiency.

Home Management: With proper training, blind persons learn that they can
manage a home, whether they live alone or with a family.  At the Center they
learn to plan menus, cook, sew, do the laundry, iron, and perform many family
and household duties.

Business Methods: Blind persons can keep records, manage their bank
accounts, negotiate contracts, file tax returns, write business letters and
conduct personal business affairs.

Physical Conditioning: Blindness or severe visual impairment often reduces
free physical activity for persons who are blind and often results in a
double disability.  Consequently, many blind persons have had little
physical activity prior to their enrollment at the Center.  They are
frequently deficient in physical strength and muscular tone.  Through the
Center's physical conditioning program, students are helped to correct
physical deficiencies and develop good overall muscle tone that permits
them to undertake a full day's activity with zest and a feeling of
well-being.

Industrial Arts: The Center maintains a well-equipped shop containing hand
and power tools for working with wood and metal.  Rather than preparing the
student as a skilled workman, the instructor gives the student an
opportunity to learn about tools, measurements, processes leading to
acquiring woodworking and metal working skills, and to gain confidence and
competence in handling tools and machines.

Most important, this activity is one of the most effective ways of helping
students use all of their senses functionally, thereby developing
self-assurance.

Counseling: Personal counseling helps blind persons and their families to
cope successfully with the loss of sight.  Thousands of blind alumni and
their families, friends and associates confirmed that the Orientation
Center has proven to be eminently successful, significantly changing the
lives of those participating in it and serving as a source of inspiration to
the blind throughout the state and as a model program emulated by other
states.

                          ----------------


                         OUT OF THE DOGHOUSE

                     by Cherrie Handy Pomerantz


By the time you read this it will almost be time for our Spring convention in
Sacramento.  As usual, a great deal has been happening and I'd like to bring
you up to the minute.

First, on January 20, Steven Hazzard had his guide dog Starsky returned to
him, 136 days after Guide Dogs for the Blind took possession of Starsky! 
Guide Dogs for the Blind held a nonbinding arbitration hearing on December
19,  supervised by a retired judge, where Mr. Hazzard was cleared of false
accusations.  Almost one month after Steve's hearing, on January 13, the
Board of Directors of Guide Dogs for the Blind voted to accept the findings
of the hearing and return Starsky to Steven. 

Next, the GDUC Board met on February 8 for an all-day working session to map
out our goals for this coming year.  They include the following items:  1)
Publication of a semi-annual newsletter for members, including an inkprint
edition to be circulated to the guide dog schools and other interested
members of the public; 2) development of an active educational campaign
aimed at airport staff, associations of restaurant owners, etc.;  3) creation
of a brochure describing GDUC as well as some of the major laws governing
access to public facilities by guide dog users [we are exploring the
possibility of having this brochure prepared in one or more foreign
languages to facilitate public education and awareness of the rights of
guide dog users]; 4) creation of regional guide dog user groups, (not actual
chapters), to provide regional focus for guide dog users, a consumer
support network, and a means to organize public education activities on a
local level.  If you are interested in participating in any of these
activities, or in serving on one of GDUC's standing committees, please
contact our Treasurer, Doris Fisher at 213-866-2131.  

As of this writing, our standing committee chairs are: Ruth Ann Acosta,
Legislation; Brenda Osborn, Membership; Margie Donovan-Johnson,
Fund-raising.  Ruth Ann has also graciously agreed to act as our Program
Chair for our upcoming spring convention.

Scott Johnson, acting as associate editor of our upcoming newsletter, and I
will be working closely together to bring the newsletter out sometime in
late March or early April.  It will be recorded on cassette; due to cost,
braille will not be possible. We are asking for a $5 donation from each of
you to cover the cost of this latest GDUC activity.  Also, remember that for
our on-going fund-raising activities, we are selling a number of items you,
or rather your dog, may want, so be sure to contact Margie Donovan-Johnson
415-961-1880 for more information.  

See you in Sacramento!

                          ----------------


                   THE TAINTER CONFIRMATION STORY

                         by Robert J. Acosta


At the Fall Convention of the California Council of the Blind, Resolution 
91-B-3 was passed which opposed the confirmation of Mr. William Tainter as
the Director of the State Department of Rehabilitation.  This Resolution was
circulated far and wide by the CCB.  In our debate concerning this
Resolution, I promised you that I would ask the Board of Directors to
consider a reversal of our position if matters improved with regard to Mr.
Tainter's attitude toward services for the blind. 

The ball was in the Director's court.  After informing key members of his
staff that I was awaiting his call to meet with him,  the Director called in
late December, to set up a meeting among key representatives of the CCB, his
staff, and himself.  On January 13, we met in his office, and  at that meeting
we presented our concerns to him.  Let me now present to you my letter
regarding that meeting of January 13:  

[Editor's note:  For the sake of space, I have omitted headings and inside
addresses from the following correspondence between the CCB and the
Department of Rehabilitation.] 

January 14, 1992

Dear Bill:

First of all, I would like to thank you for our meeting yesterday.  I
sincerely hope that the results of that meeting will prove to be     
productive for both the Department and the blind.

In order to continue to keep our channels of communication open, I would
like to give you a review of our meeting as I understand it.  If I make an
error in any of my statements, please do not hesitate to correct me.

Just prior to our meeting, Deputy Director Brenda Premo asked me if      she
could bring the Program Manager for the Blind to the meeting after we had
spoken for about fifteen minutes.  I explained to Brenda that      the CCB was
always pleased to welcome the Program Manager for the      Blind, at any of
our meetings with you.  Bill, as I stated at the      meeting, the blind
community trusts the Program Manager for the Blind.  Over his nineteen
years in this position, he has been more than fair with all of us.   
Also, I did not discuss the Bruce Brown report.  The CCB strongly believes
that the Department should publish this report.  There is an undercurrent
in the blind community which believes that the Department does wish to do
so because you do not like his conclusions.  I hope that the Blind Advisory
Committee will address this situation early on. 

At our meeting yesterday, we presented the following wish list to you:

1.  I stated that it was our belief that a Commission for the Blind, operating
separately from general rehab, will provide the best           service delivery
to blind Californians.  However, I stated that at this time, the climate was
not right in our state for such a Commission.

          -2. The Council expressed to you our support for a separate Division
for the Blind within the Department of Rehabilitation.  We believe that such
a division can provide true fiscal and service accountability to the blind,
the State Legislature and the Governor.  

3.  I urged you to greatly strengthen the role of the Program Manager for the
Blind.  I reviewed the history of our struggle with the Department of
Rehabilitation to improve services for the blind citizens of California.  I
discussed and pointed out to you actions taken by past Directors to erode
the Services for the Blind Section.  The CCB feels that a truly positive step
would be to place added duties and supervisory responsibilities on the
shoulders of the Program Manager for the Blind.  

4.  The CCB requested that the Program Manager for the Blind and Partially
Sighted be allowed to supervise on behalf of the Department, the case
service contracts which you grant each year to various private blindness
agencies throughout the state.  No person in the central office has a better
feel for working with these agencies, to hold them accountable in serving
the blind, than does Manuel Urena.

5.  The CCB believes that the Program Manager for the Blind should also
supervise the Business Enterprise Program.  In the early 1970's, he      was
given such a supervisory role.  After several years, Director Ed Roberts, in
his efforts to break-up programs for the blind, stripped him of this
assignment.  Due to the many scandals which have plagued the Business
Enterprise Program, we feel that you would be taking a truly bold step by
placing a blind supervisor at the head of this program.  We understand that
there would be a BEP Administrator but we want that person to be supervised
by the Program Manager for the Blind.  If you took this action, you would
have the total support of the California Council of the Blind.  We believe
that the Program Manager for the Blind, working in concert with the Division
Chief, can cut the current power struggle which is occurring in the
California Vendors Policy Committee.     
6.  The California Council of the Blind strongly supports the retention of
the Orientation Center for the Blind, under the supervision of Manuel Urena. 
Mr. Urena headed the Orientation Center for the Blind in the state of Iowa
for fifteen years.  Assisting newly blind persons to overcome this great
challenge of sight loss, is one of the great strengths of the Program
Manager for the Blind.  Removing the Center from the supervision of the
Program Manager for the Blind can only be viewed by the CCB as a truly
regressive action.  

7.  It is our belief that the counselor-teachers should be directly     
supervised by the Program Manager.  As matters stand now, most of the
District Administrators do not truly know how to properly      supervise
these wonderful people.  The counselor teachers for the blind are generally
highly respected by the blind community.  I believe that this is one service,
provided by the Department, which enjoys the unified support of the blind
community.

8.  Bill, we informed you that we would be introducing legislation with the
following wording:  "There shall be an Orientation Center for the Blind at
400 Adams Street in Albany, California."  It was our hope that you could
write a letter to the Governor, requesting his support for such legislation. 
We can never again face the closure of this wonderful facility.  Over forty
states in this Union have Orientation Centers for the Blind; it would have
been a great tragedy had we lost ours.  The California Orientation Center
serves as a model for the nation.  

In our meeting, you asked about Resolution 91-B-3, which was unanimously
adopted by the California Council of the Blind at its fall convention.  This
Resolution instructed the Council, for the first time in our great history,
to oppose the confirmation of the Director of the State Department of
Rehabilitation by the State Senate.  We have been informed that your
confirmation hearing will be held on February 19, 1992.  Our organization, as
well as other interested parties, has been asked to submit written and oral
testimony by Senator Roberti.  In passing this Resolution, CCB members, who
always prefer peace, requested that we continue trying to get the Director
to do something tangible and constructive where the blind are concerned.  We
hope that you will be able to do that very thing.  

In conclusion, Bill, we sincerely believe that the time for positive action
is at hand.  We sincerely hope that together we can share future productive
years in our efforts to improve service delivery to the blind citizens of
California.  

Cordially,

Robert Acosta, President

cc:  Brenda Premo                                                  

                                * * *

Still committed to oppose Director Tainter's confirmation, I prepared a
statement of opposition to be presented to the Senate Rules Committee.  For
your edification, I present it at this time:  


                              STATEMENT

                      Robert Acosta, President
                   California Council of the Blind

                   Senate Rules Committee Hearing:
     Confirmation of William Tainter as Rehabilitation Director

                          January 19, 1992


My name is Robert Acosta and I appear here today as President of the
California Council of the Blind.  The Council is a statewide organization of
blind persons devoted to improving all aspects of life for the sightless.  
We have some 45 chapters from Redding to San Diego, with a membership in the
thousands.  We are all volunteers in the Council, serving on all manner of
public and private boards and advisory bodies.

The Council is devoted to improving all aspects of life for the blind
including:  education of blind children; assurance of economic security for
all blind persons; meeting the health needs of blind persons; assuring that
blind persons have access to all those things which sighted people take for
granted:  library services, useful public transportation, the opportunity
to enjoy the amenities of life; and the assurance that blind persons in need
of adjustment services and rehabilitation assistance will receive such help
in a timely and effective manner.

The California Council of the Blind was formally organized in 1934, and we
are very proud of our record of achievement on behalf of the blind of our
state.  The blind of California have achieve great things:  in 1929 it was the
blind who sponsored a constitutional amendment which assures public
assistance for needy blind persons; as early as 1935, we began a decades-
long sponsorship of legislative measures to increase public access for the
blind and other disabled persons, a process which culminated in 1968 with
the passage of what we call the "White Cane Law"--a California act which
guarantees to the blind and all other disabled the right to be abroad in our
land; in 1951 we sponsored a far-reaching measure which resulted in the
creation of the State's Orientation Center for the Blind, the cornerstone of
special services which rehabilitate blind adults.  We have worked long and
hard for improved library and related services for visually impaired. 
Recently our efforts have centered on such diverse subjects as improving
public transit facilities for all disabled persons, working to pass the
Americans with Disabilities Act, meeting the special needs of blind college
students, and underwriting legal assistance for blind people in need of
such help.

During our over half-century of organized effort on behalf of the blind, we
have learned a number of truths.  One important truth is that we of the
California Council outlast most:  We've seen problems come and go from the
depression of the 30's to the recession of the 80's and hope to see the end of
the current downturn soon.  We've learned to be patient in effecting
institutional change to improve the lot of the blind, and have often found
great and powerful friends in the legislature.  We have outlasted many
bureaucrats not receptive to our cause and said fond farewells to those who
understood our needs.  We have endured the vagaries of fortune in the
gubernatorial selections for the key position of Director of the Department
of Rehabilitation. 

It is no secret that the blind of California have been in conflict with the
Department of Rehabilitation's approach to services for the visually
impaired, and this conflict has been frequent.  We take no pleasure in
assuring you that we believe the performance of this Department has been,
for the most part, mediocre at best.  We believe that this poor performance
is in large part due to the absolute resistance of successive
Rehabilitation Administrations to provide the kind of specialized
assistance blind people need.  In our opinion, the best rehabilitation
services for the blind and partially sighted are provided by specialist
counselors who have specialized supervision.  This conflict has been with
us since the Department of Rehabilitation was created in 1963.

Notwithstanding the differences which have existed between the blind of
California and the Department of Rehabilitation, we have for the most part
found ways in which to work together to build better programs for the blind. 
Sometimes we have developed warm and productive relationships despite deep
differences.  To the credit of all concerned, this has always been to the
benefit of programs for the blind.

So we try to be patient, we try to take the long view of program development
and do our best to be a positive influence on the decision-making process in
programs of concern for blind people.  The stakes are too high for us to do
otherwise.

My appearance here today breaks a tradition of the decades.  To my certain
knowledge, the California Council of the Blind has never made an appearance
in a confirmation hearing.  I am here at the specific instruction of the
Convention of the California Council of the Blind to oppose the
confirmation of Mr. William Tainter as Director of the Department of
Rehabilitation.  This is total departure from our long-maintained policy,
and
I want to tell you why it has come about.

It was late May, 1991, and William Tainter had been appointed a few short
weeks before the semi-annual convention of the California Council of the
Blind.  We were most pleased to welcome him to our meeting, to become better
acquainted with him, and, we hoped, to have the opportunity to share our
goals and apprehensions about the future of rehabilitation in California. 
Whatever hopes we had that he had come to listen and to share were dashed as
he enunciated a position which is diametrically opposed to our belief in the
principle of specialized services for visually impaired persons.  We call
specialized services the only effective way of serving blind and partially
sighted people.  He calls specialized, categorical services "segregated
services"--the negative implication is clear.

This issue is at the heart of our problem with Mr. Tainter.  The blind have
been engaged in the struggle for specialized services which are better and
greater, delivered earlier, and more accountable for outcomes.  We have seen
the growth of what is called a "service delivery system," which is by no
means perfect, but which we can work on to improve.  We hear Mr. Tainter
speak of "Parity" of services for all the disabled; and we believe this means
decreasing services for the blind rather than improving services for other
groups of disabled.  We wholeheartedly support the general improvement of
rehabilitation programs, but never at the expense of the blind.

But we soon found that our problems with Mr. Tainter were only beginning,
for in July, the very day the Legislature's recess began, he announced by
letter that the Orientation Center for the Blind would be closed at the end
of the calendar year.  Members of this Committee, I cannot begin to describe
the shock and despair among the blind of California, and our friends, at
this stunning turn of events.  We know, as blind people who have endured
much in successfully achieving independence, that the kind of adjustment
services offered at the Orientation Center are irreplaceable and that if you
lose your sight, if you are lucky, you will receive training at the
Orientation Center.  It is the centerpiece of California's commitment to
make a difference for our blind.

But Mr. Tainter chose to eliminate OCB, even though he had never seen the
facility nor  talked to its staff nor consulted with his experts in
rehabilitation of the blind.  He certainly never consulted with the
organized blind of California.  I continue to feel nothing but shock that a
Director of Rehabilitation would make a unilateral decision to end the most
admired program in our state.  And he not only ordered the close of OCB, but
in his announcement he also revealed his near-total lack of knowledge about
what the center is and what it does.  Thus, he stated with great assurance
that after OCB closed, clients would receive mobility training in their home
communities.  What a mockery!  OCB does so much more than teach mobility! 
And the ignorance does not end there.  Had Mr. Tainter bothered to ask, he
would have found that there is a severe shortage of mobility instructors
not only in California but also across the country.  No one--professional or
otherwise--that I know would ever estimate that all travel needs of blind
persons could be met in their home communities.  The fact is that those of us
interested in services for the blind and in taking the time to familiarize
ourselves know that there is a nationwide shortage of mobility teachers. 
Had Mr. Tainter bothered to inquire he could have found this out as well. 

We are so grateful that members of the Legislature came so firmly to the
defense of the Orientation Center and the important service it provides to
the blind.  Now, with the assurance that there is no way OCB can be closed by
a unilateral and misguided decision, it is hard to describe how devastating
the Director's July surprise was.  We are only glad that we were able to call
upon this Legislature and others to arrange a September surprise to
maintain this wonderful facility.

But the Orientation Center was only the largest and most evident target. 
Using the shrinking state budget as the reason for closing OCB, the
Director added to his hit list a significant number of all private agencies
for the blind which are receiving rehabilitation funds in special programs
to provide services to the visually impaired.  The Director's hit list
included the Center for the Partially Sighted at Santa Monica which he
decreed would lose all Rehabilitation funding; The Foundation for the
Junior Blind in Los Angeles; the Senior Self-Reliance Projects throughout
the State; Rehabilitation Services of Northern California; the Sensory
Access Foundation; the deaf-blind program at the Lions Blind Center in
Oakland.  All these agencies were slated to be cut anywhere from 20 per cent
to 100 per cent, while at the same time independent living centers were to be
cut a very manageable 4 per cent.  The Department's specialist counselors
for the blind were to be reduced by an unspecified amount. 

There are two important observations about these cuts.  The first is that,
of course, the blind understand we are in a difficult fiscal position in the
State of California.  We know this, and believe all should be prepared to
accommodate to lesser budgets.  But reductions are one thing, obliteration
is another.  The second is that some, if not all, of the programs for the
blind are rich in Federal matching funds.  OCB, for instance, operates with
25 per cent State money and 75 per cent Federal.  The same is true for the
Foundation for the Junior Blind, and perhaps some others.  Why throw away
these programs for the blind based on State budget considerations?

There are those who suggest Mr. Tainter's hit list was based upon his bias
against special programs and his preference for the independent living
center model.  Let me tell you, my friends, that there's scarcely a blind
person drawing breath who has ever gotten good service from an independent
living center.  Our needs are different, highly specialized, and expensive
however the services are organized.

And, of course, in matters affecting the blind there is no subject which
brings with it such a lot of baggage, so much trouble and confusion, as the
Business Enterprise Program.  This employment program for the blind, with
the noble aim of freeing visually impaired small businessmen from the yoke
of dependency, has never, to the best of my knowledge and belief, fulfilled
its promise here in California.  The charges and counter-charges have
ranged across the State and raged in the halls of government.  Nothing is
ever settled, nobody is ever happy.  Adding to the burdens of this situation
is the role the state authority has played, as the Department of
Rehabilitation has made repeated new starts with new management--all to no
avail.  There is a pervasive "business as usual" quality to what transpires
in this program.  In the past 20 years there have been three major scandals
involving great quantities of equipment translating into hundreds of
thousands of dollars lost.  News accounts tell us that $1.5 million was
missing during the latest scandal.

With the "gang that can't shoot straight" mentality of this program, you
will not be surprised that the December/January election of the Vendor
Committee was botched with charges from operators that the BEP
Administrator attempted to manipulate the election process.  Whether he did
or not, for the record, he has been replaced.  Once again, a change in
management.  But let me point out that for the past 35 years (and perhaps
longer, but I had no records showing it), the BEP has been under the
direction of sighted managers.  We the blind know of so many capable blind
persons that we are appalled that the State of California would not trust
blind people in such a position.  We of the Council believe that only a blind
person, with a good understanding of the history and problems in BEP, could
have the depth of information to deal with this program which is rightly
termed by some "the slough of despond."  Sighted people all too often believe
that the blind are incapable of doing much.  We blind have to cope with this
all too often.  What a shame that BEP is allowed to wallow in the mess when
we expect that the blind could and would do better.

There is an absolute lack of confidence in the Department's Business
Enterprise Program and its administration.  The fumbling approach that we
have observed cannot continue and must not be permitted to go on.  We
believe it is only fair to hold the Director responsible for the failure to
restore confidence in BEP, and, indeed, to bring sanity to this morass.  We
believe that the Director and his administration once again show an
appalling lack of understanding about programs for the blind and partially
sighted.  

It is for all these reasons, and more, that the California Council of the
Blind must oppose Mr. Tainter's confirmation as Director of Rehabilitation. 
At our November convention, I was  instructed to do so and nothing has
occurred since that time which could lead to any other conclusion.  Mr.
Tainter asked for a meeting with us, and we met on January 13.  As usual, we
were prepared to explain to Mr. Tainter what steps he might take to begin
the process of bringing confidence back and provided him with a virtual
laundry list of options, any one of which would indicate a willingness on
his part to be open to our point of view.  Our suggestions for program
improvement included:  

Establishing a separate Division for the Blind within the Department;
strengthening the role of the subject-matter specialist and the Program
Manager for the Blind and Partially Sighted in particular; placing the
Business Enterprise Program under the supervision of the Blind and
Partially Sighted Section; maintaining the Orientation Center for the Blind
in the Services for the Blind and Partially-Sighted Section supervised by
specialists in work for the blind; also, supporting our effort to change the
law to insure that there SHALL be an Orientation Center, replacing the
current permissive language; placing Counselor-Teachers for the Blind in
the Blind Section.

Not one of these suggestions is earth-shattering; all but one could be 
accomplished by a stroke of the Director's pen.  Naturally, there has been no
response, but the Department can claim with some justification that there
hasn't been sufficient opportunity to evaluate our suggestions.  After all,
it took the Rehabilitation Administration nine months to come up with a
meeting of the Advisory Committee for Services for the Blind.  In those same
nine months, how many young blind people gave up on a system which is not
responsive to them, in which many workers are so ignorant about the
problems and needs of the blind that they cannot provide any help?  How
many elderly men and women, losing their sight in old age, were not served
by agencies which had no funds with which to put workers into the field?  We
grow weary of pleas for bureaucratic convenience when blind people are in
need, in pain, in want for the very kind of specialized services that William
Tainter ordered shut down.  And now he calls for a meeting of the Blind
Advisory Committee the very day before this confirmation.  How transparent
and how cynical to believe that this meeting could compensate for the lack
of positive effort to alleviate the condition of the sightless who seek
work, who seek a better life.  

It is because of all this that I appear before you today to ask that William
Tainter not be confirmed as Director of Rehabilitation.

Members of the Committee, I want you to   know that we are under no illusions
about the course of this confirmation hearing, and we do not feel that our
position will result in non-confirmation.  The California Council of the
Blind is here today to tell you that the welfare of the blind and the 
rehabilitation programs for the blind are under such pressure for
nullification that we cannot carry on business as usual.  Once again, we
need your help, as we did in 1991, to protect not just the Orientation Center
for the Blind but all specialized programs for the blind.  If you choose to
confirm Mr. Tainter, we ask that you find some means to assure that the
blind of California will not be confronted with the devastating specter of
program destruction.  Program improvement, yes; program annihilation,
never.

Last summer and fall, groups of blind people in chapters of the California
Council of the Blind across our great state came together, armed with
typewriters and a strong will, to protect what is good.  Hundreds, even
thousands of letters were composed by blind people informing members of the
Legislature, the Governor, and anyone they could inform that the
Orientation Center for the Blind represents the best California has to
offer its blind citizens.  Their commitment and loyalty is the best
demonstration we have why the Center is needed, for the people who needed it
the most wanted it saved.  

What I am asking today is for legislative oversight of programs for the
blind, to the end that kind of unilateral and wrong-headed action Mr.
Tainter attempted will not occur again, if he is confirmed by this
Committee.

The California Council of the Blind stands ready to work with anyone,
including Mr. Tainter, for productive and significant change on behalf of
blind people.  That is our pledge to all and our promise to the blind of
California.

                                * * *

The Director then sent me a letter under date of February 5 responding to my
concerns.  

February 5, 1992

Dear Bob:

Thank you for the detailed letter of follow-up to our January 13 meeting.  I
was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss common needs and interests. 
It is my sincere hope that our discussion marks the beginning of a more
understanding and trusting relationship between the Department and the
Council.  Our mutual constituents can only benefit from that cooperation.  

Before responding to the specific concerns raised in your letter of January
14, let me update you on some of the activities I have initiated on behalf of
blind and visually impaired Californians since coming to the Department:

1.  As you know, the Blind Advisory Committee (BAC) was disbanded by the
previous Director when she left office in December of 1990.  Because I firmly
believe the most productive decisions come from careful consideration of
the opinion of all interested parties, I have reactivated that committee. 
Not only have I reconstituted that body, I expanded its membership to insure
the widest representation possible.  Our first meeting is scheduled to be
held on February 18 in Sacramento.  Attached is a copy of the agenda
developed by the Program Manager for that meeting which includes many
issues critical to blind and visually impaired consumers.  It is my hope
that the Blind Advisory Committee will take its role seriously and will
provide the Department with quality input on programs and services.

2.  I have directed Deputy Director Premo to add the issue of the Bruce Brown
report to the initial BAC agenda.  I fully intend to distribute copies of the
report to anyone interested in receiving one after the Blind Advisory
Committee has had the opportunity to review and update it.  

3.  Although it has not been formally announced, retirement of the Director
of the Orientation Center for the Blind (OCB) presents a great opportunity
and challenge for the Department and the blind community.  The OCB has a
long and distinguished history of providing blind Californians with the
skills necessary for independence.  It is critical that we find the best
candidate for the position.  The person hired must have qualifications
above and beyond the usual management skills required of most positions. 
As the Program Manager for the Blind indicated to you, we are beginning to
develop the structure for the recruitment and the hiring of a Director for
the Orientation Center for the Blind.  I want representatives from the blind
community to participate fully in the recruitment process.  I have
instructed staff to identify key alumni through the Council and the
National Federation of the Blind to assure selection of the most qualified
and appropriate candidate for that position.  The Program Manager for the
Blind will participate heavily in the selection process.  I am confident our
collective efforts will identify a qualified person with the skills required
to continue the standard of program excellence enjoyed by consumers of the
Center for over 40 years.

4.  The Department is working closely with the Curriculum Committee at OCB. 
Recommendations from the committee are in the final stages and should be
ready for distribution in accessible formats by mid April.  As a person with
a disability, I fully understand the importance of access and have long been
an advocate of access for ALL persons with disabilities. Under my
stewardship, this Department will provide the necessary accommodations for
consumers, advisors, and employees to insure full participation in the
Department's policy-shaping process.

Now, let me turn to the specific issues raised in your letter: 

1.  Commission for the Blind:  Your assessment of the political climate for
an independent commission is on target.  These tough economic times require
that the Governor and Legislature search for ways to reduce rather than
expand government.  As Director of the Department, my goal is to protect our
federal match and prevent an erosion of consumer services.  Services to
blind and visually impaired consumers are--and will continue to be--a
priority for the Department of Rehabilitation.

2.  Division for the Blind:  While I am committed to increased authority and
responsibility for the Program Manager for the Blind, the same limitations
noted above are applicable to creation of a separate division for these
levels.  I would rather provide more direct services.

3.  Increased Program Manager for the Blind Responsibilities:  As you are 
no doubt aware, I am a strong advocate for consumer control over programs
and services affecting them.  I have instructed Deputy Directors Premo and
Kay to insure direct input from the Program Manager for the Blind as well as
Rehabilitation Counselors for the Blind and Counselor-Teachers on all
issues pertaining to blind and visually impaired consumers. I agree with
your assessment that the Program Manager should be more actively involved
with program issues and policies which affect blind and visually impaired
consumers.

4.  Case Services Contracts:  Responsibilities for oversight of all state
funded Title VII(c) Senior Self Reliance grants will be shifted over to the
Program Manager for the Blind.  Responsibility will include negotiation and
approval of all contracts for blind services throughout the state,
including case services contracts.  The certification process is being
expanded to include participation by Rehabilitation Counselors for the
Blind and/or Counselor-Teachers.

5.  Business Enterprise Program: The Department is currently developing a
plan to restructure the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) which better
serves and supports vendors and their customers.  In the past, the Business
Enterprise Program did not receive the administrative attention and
oversight necessary to make it a viable rehabilitation program.  The BEP has
become a major priority in my administration.  I genuinely hope that, with
the assistance, support and feedback given by groups like the Council, a
standard of excellence that encourages growth and opportunities for BEP
vendors will result.  

Although I am not persuaded that it is a prudent proposal to place the
Business Enterprise Program under the Program Manager for the Blind, I will
upgrade the BEP Chief position to attract a person with the business and
marketing skills necessary for this program to reach its full potential.  I
assure you that a fully qualified person will be hired for this position.

6.  Orientation Center for the Blind:  I fully concur with your
recommendation.  Rest assured my intention has never been to remove OCB
from the purview of the Program Manager for the Blind, nor would I entertain
such an erosion of his responsibilities.  As we discussed, I am committed to
keeping OCB open and am optimistic that it will remain so.  
7.  Counselor-Teachers:  Like you, I understand and am committed to the
concept of independent living.  I also understand the significance of the
role played by Counselor-Teachers in assisting blind and visually impaired
Californians live the most independent lifestyles possible.  I recently
authorized annual training programs for Rehabilitation Counselors for the
Blind and Counselor-Teachers to assure that consumers have benefit of the
latest information available.  You will be pleased to know that the Program
Manager for the Blind will oversee and approve training priorities for that
program.  I have also authorized biannual regional meetings to enhance
communication between departmental staff in different divisions and
locations.

8.  OCB Legislation:  Your desire to introduce a bill is understandable given
the current budget crisis.  As I stated earlier, I am committed to keeping
OCB open and I will continue to advocate within the administration for the
continued existence of OCB.

I hope this letter offers you and the Council a tangible agenda with
constructive outcomes, and that OCB will now be able to communicate a more
positive and unifying message about my commitment to blind and visually
impaired Californians.

Bob, I was personally saddened to hear about the Council's opposition to my
confirmation.  We got off to a bad start, but the January 13 meeting reopened
the dialogue between us.  I trust that through communications like these we
have began the process of building a more productive relationship.  

Sincerely,

William Tainter, Director

                                * * *

The next letters are as follows:  first, a letter that I sent on February 10,
to Brenda Premo, Chief of the Independent Living Services Division of the
State Department of Rehabilitation, and second, from Director Tainter dated
February 13,  responding  to the first letter. 

February 10, 1992

TO:  BRENDA PREMO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
     State Department of Rehabilitation

FROM:  ROBERT J. ACOSTA, PRESIDENT
       California Council of the Blind

RE:  FEBRUARY 5 LETTER FROM DIRECTOR TAINTER TO THE        
     CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND

Dear Brenda:

I regret to inform you that the Director's letter of February 5, 1992,
responding to our requests, does not persuade us to change our position
with regard to Mr. Tainter's confirmation.  Please know that the California
Council of the Blind does not relish our position which we must take before
the Senate Rules Committee.

We are prepared to offer another additional alternative which combined with
the affirmative decisions made by the Director, as illustrated in his
February 5 letter, will cause us to change to a support position.  If the
Director can add the following, we shall support him before the Senate Rules
committee.

"That the Program Manager for Services for the Blind and Partially Sighted
of the State Department of Rehabilitation, be authorized by the Director to
serve as a consultant to the Business Enterprise Program.  That the Program
Manager will attend California Vendors Policy Meetings and other pertinent
staff and vendor meetings of importance to the BEP."  

It has always been our belief that the Program Manager is the single most
important person in the Department who is a true expert on blindness.  He
has served in his capacity as Program Manager for nineteen years.  Sighted
administrators of the BEP have literally ruined this program over the past
thirty years.  Our request does not give the Program Manager any authority
over the Administration of BEP, but it does allow the Department to present
a representative who has demonstrated good sense in work for the blind.  I
sincerely hope that the Director can present to me, an affirmative statement
in writing prior to February 19.  An all-out war between the Director and the
organized blind is a no-win situation for the blind and visually impaired
clients of the Department of Rehabilitation.

                                * * *

13 February 1992

Dear Bob:

I have read with delight your letter to Deputy Director Premo suggesting
that CCB is prepared to support my confirmation as long as I am willing to
commit to having the Program Manager for the Blind and Partially Sighted
serve as a consultant to the Business Enterprise Program.

I am committed to your proposal of having the Program Manager serve as a
consultant to the BEP program.  As I stated earlier, I think the Program
Manager should be integrally involved in all programs affecting blind and
visually impaired consumers.  However, I have a responsibility to take the
proposal to the California Vendors Policy Committee (CVPC) before I can
make a final commitment to you.  I will be happy to have Deputy Director
Premo strongly advocate for your proposal at the upcoming CVPC meeting and
seek guidance from the CVPC on a more precise consultant's role for the
Program Manager.

Thanks for your cooperation, and I trust that my commitment will be the
final bridge necessary to assure a better relationship between the CCB and
the Department.

sincerely,

WILLIAM TAINTER, Director

                                * * *

And on February 16, the Board of Directors of the CCB voted to support Mr.
Tainter's confirmation with reservations.  I asked John Lopez to present our
statement of support at the confirmation hearing of the Senate Rules
Committee on February 19.  The statement is as follows:

                  SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR TAINTER

                          February 19, 1992


Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Rules Committee:  My name is John
Lopez.  I am a member of the Board of Directors of the California Council of
the Blind (CCB), our nation's largest statewide organization of the blind
with a membership numbering in the thousands.  

July 19, 1991, will be remembered as a day of infamy by the blind of this
state.  On that day, Director Tainter's office called to inform us of the
pending closure of the Orientation Center for the Blind (OCB) and other
programs for the blind due to the budget crunch.  The OCB has been in
existence for forty-one years.  It helps the newly blind to adjust to their
challenging disability.  In a later letter to our President, Director Tainter
informed him that blind people could learn mobility in their local
communities.  Mr. Tainter did not realize that the OCB does far more than
teach mobility to its students.  On a 24-hour basis, the Center in Albany
helps to shape up newly-blinded persons' self-esteem.  Throughout the
summer, Mr. Tainter told various groups of blind people that the closure of
the Center was a "done deal".  He told us to stop him if we could.  We believe
that it is less than a coincidence that Mr. Tainter waited until July 19, the
last day of the summer session of the State Legislature, to drop his
bombshell.

However, he did not reckon with the energy, enthusiasm, and commitment of
the blind of California and of the California Council of the Blind and did
not count on the good will of our State legislature.  Together we were able
to save not only the OCB but also the other worthwhile programs for the
blind funded by the Department of Rehabilitation.  The CCB today extends its
thanks and gratitude to the 70 legislators who signed Senate Joint
Resolution 57 which asked the Governor to save the Orientation Center for
the Blind.  Thanks to you, we were successful.

     I first heard Mr. Tainter at our Spring Convention in late May of 1991. 
At that time, he shocked our membership by referring to us as
"segregationists" by calling our services "segregated" programs.  I can
assure this Committee that we are not "segregationists".  Since 1934, the CCB
has been an advocate for civil rights for all disabled Americans. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Tainter believes in the "shake 'n' bake" method of serving
disabled Californians.  He has made statements claiming that a
Rehabilitation Counselor  could adequately serve all disabilities with
equal skill.  I submit that should Mr. Tainter turn to this generic approach
the disabled community would then be serve by counselors who would be
"jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none".  The blind will never accept such
a generic approach.  We demand specialized services which will enable us to
compete in an integrated world.  Give us the skills and we will be productive
citizens in this great nation.  But give us counselors unfamiliar with our
true problems and we are destined to sit on the welfare rolls of California. 


     After getting our message, Mr. Tainter began to hire competent staff
who began to listen to our concerns.  For example, Brenda Premo heads the
Division which houses the Section for the Blind and is generally doing a
fine job.  The Director has become aware of the need to work more closely
with the Program Manager for the Blind who is blind himself and is the
Department's greatest expert on blindness.  Mr. Tainter has made many
promises which would give the Program Manager for the Blind greater
authority so that his expertise could be put to better use than in the past. 
In 1981, the blind of California caused to have passed through the
legislature a law which makes position of Program Manager for the Blind
statutory.  We trust the Program Manager for the Blind.  

     Throughout the month of January of 1992, the Director and our
President have been communicating.  The Director has issued to our
President two written communications making many commitments which if
carried out will enhance services for the blind.  

     With this background in mind, the California Council of the Blind now
endorses the confirmation of Mr. William Tainter as the Director of the
Department of Rehabilitation.  But we do this with one admonition.  The blind
of California and the State Legislature must never allow a Director of the
Department of Rehabilitation to make the decision to abolish programs for
the blind in a vacuum.  When Mr. Tainter dropped his bombshell on us on July
19, he had not spoken to the blind community about his contemplated actions. 
Surely, he did not seek the wisdom of the State Legislature.  I urge the
Legislature to create an oversight Committee which shall force the Director
to come to the table and at least talk to this Committee before making such
drastic decisions affecting the lives of the blind of California.  This
oversight Committee could include legislators and disabled persons.  Our
suggestion should also be expanded to include all aspects of rehabilitation
and to involve representatives of the disabled community.

     Therefore, we are pleased to endorse Mr. Tainter and look forward to
working constructively with him to improve service delivery to the blind of
California.

                                * * *

In concluding, we sincerely hope that we made the correct decision to
support Mr. Tainter.  He is now committed to support the Orientation Center
for the Blind.  The Council is well represented on the Blind Advisory
Committee of the Department.  The same is true of the California Vendors
Policy Committee.  I believe that we now have a great opportunity to effect
services to the blind in a truly positive manner.   

                          ----------------


             OPENING REMARKS OF BILL TAINTER, DIRECTOR 
                    DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
                SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SACRAMENTO, CA
                           19 FEBRUARY 92

INTRODUCTION:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee.  I appreciate
this occasion to tell you a bit about myself and---more importantly--my
plans for the Department of Rehabilitation.

I am very honored to have been asked by Governor Wilson to serve as the
Director of the Department of Rehabilitation.  The Department represents
the vital link between Californians with disabilities and the State.  It
assures opportunities and viable options for working and living
independently in the community.

BACKGROUND:

For the past 25 years, I have advocated that persons with disabilities be
given the opportunity to have a meaningful role in and become contributing
members of our society.

Upon graduating from San Jose State University, I organized a comprehensive
service center for persons with a wide variety of disabilities.  Then, in the
mid-70's I had the good fortune to move to San Diego.  During my 15 years
there, I served as the Executive Director of the Community Service Center
for the Disabled, a community-based organization run by and for people with
disabilities.  Our Center was dedicated to significant community change
that empowers  people with disabilities by increasing their independence. 
The Center's programs provide services to people with physical, mental,
sensory and developmental disabilities.  The Center offered, and continues
to offer, a comprehensive array of services that range from preventing
institutionalization to seeking meaningful, competitive employment in the
community.

I am well known as an active advocate for policies and programs at the
federal, state and local levels which enhance the capacities of people with
disabilities and create greater opportunities for their substantial
involvement in the decision-making that directly effects their lives.

And, of course, I am a Department of Rehabilitation success story.  As a
former consumer of the Department of Rehabilitation's services, I am well
acquainted with the rehabilitation process.  I know the positive impact the
Department's educational and training services played in my own life.


PLANS FOR THE DEPARTMENT:

As a person with a life experience of multiple disabilities, I am keenly
aware of the positive messages the Department of Rehabilitation can put
forth about people with disabilities.  The Department can---and will---play
a major role in improving attitudes toward people with varying
disabilities.

Governor Wilson has designated the Department of Rehabilitation as the lead
agency in the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The
ADA is landmark federal civil rights legislation for people with
disabilities.  I take that responsibility very seriously! At my direction,
the Department has developed a comprehensive plan to implement the ADA. 
The Department will work cooperatively and positively with small
businesses and major corporations throughout the State as well as with
disability rights organizations and state and local agencies.  The ADA will
help us heighten awareness of the benefits and rewards of the full
participation of persons with disabilities in our society.

I strongly favor the involvement of disabled persons themselves in
decisions which directly affect their lives.  That is why I have brought to
the Department, and promoted within the Department, qualified individuals
with disabilities who share my belief in self-determination for themselves
and their peers.

This philosophy also translates into a strong commitment to consumer
participation in shaping the direction of the Department.

My mission for the Department is to optimize the use of our vocational
rehabilitation programs by concentrating on serving those individuals who
can benefit most from our efforts---individuals who, without our services,
could not achieve meaningful levels of independence.

The Department of Rehabilitation has a responsibility to serve
Californians with a full range of disabilities.  In accordance with federal
law, I will concentrate on increasing the services to persons with severe
disabilities, including those with physical, mental, sensory and
developmental disabilities.

I will increase outreach efforts to identify presently underserved
populations that are eligible for help from additional federal vocational
rehabilitation dollars.

I plan to continue to develop opportunities for persons with developmental
disabilities to attain their potential for working in the community. 
Through the expansion of additional services leading up to supported
employment, the Department will provide persons with developmental
disabilities greater support services to acquire and retain employment in
the most integrated community settings possible.  The Department of
Rehabilitation has a key role to play in the continuum of services for
persons with developmental disabilities spelled out in the Lanterman Act.

I will also increase our efforts to assist consumers with career planning
and the implementation of long-term rehabilitation plans that lead to
meaningful careers.  Part of this assistance to consumers MUST include
effective use of assistive technology.  I have already taken steps to
develop a comprehensive State plan for linking people with disabilities
with useful technology that fosters their independence in the home,
community and workplace.

And, as I have explained to Senator Mello, I am working very hard to address
the numerous problems in the Business Enterprise Program.  BEP is a
federally-sponsored rehabilitation program in which blind and visually
impaired businessmen and women manage food service and other vending
facilities in government-owned and -occupied buildings.  Vendors and
legislators are quite frustrated with the Department, and I must tell you I
understand---and share---their frustrations.

For example, the Department is seriously tardy in submitting two separate
reports to the Legislature.  I assure you that the first report will arrive
on your desks by April 1, and the other by May 29th.

I, and my top staff, are working on several initiatives to improve the BEP
program! We have taken steps of late to redirect and increase staffing in
the program.  At long last, we are finally making print materials available
to vendors in braille and other accessible formats.

We  are developing comprehensive regulations to govern the program.  I will
incorporate procedures for electing vendor representatives to the Vendor
Policy Committee on regulations.  And, I will soon be holding meetings with
the Director of CalTrans on roadside rest-stop stands and the Director of
General Services on equipment and leasing issues.  These are just a few of
our BEP initiatives.

On a final BEP point, I have made arrangements with the Administration to
return the exempt entitlement to the Vendor's Policy Committee.  We will
work with the CVPC this weekend to develop a duty statement and selection
process to fill this position.  I hope to work closely with the Policy
Committee and its staff on further improvements to the BEP program.

Now, let me mention our Independent Living Centers.  As you know,
independent living is a philosophy, a concept of having people with
disabilities take greater control over their own lives.  The State's 27
Independent Living Centers are valuable resources for achieving that goal.

The business of the Department of Rehabilitation is to assist people with
disabilities to obtain employment and live more independently.

BUDGET CRISIS:

When I first accepted this position, I faced the prospect of reducing the
Department's services by up to 25 percent.  This was a particularly
difficult task in that the Department is primarily funded by federal
vocational rehabilitation dollars that must be matched by 25 percent State
General Funds.  For each State dollar cut from our budget, we would have
lost three federal dollars!

I was compelled to produce a budget that would reduce staffing by more than
450 persons---one out of every four department employees---and reduce
consumer service dollars to rehabilitation agencies by 25 percent.  Those
sizeable cuts would have seriously hurt all programs and services, across
disabilities.

Included in this budget reduction plan was a comparable cut in funding to
agencies serving the blind and visually impaired, with the possible closure
of the state-run Orientation Center for the Blind training facility in
Albany.  Closing the OCB was an undesirable option, but if we had to do so,
we would have made certain that similar services in Northern California
were still available, only in a non-residential, less-costly setting.

As a result of several discussions I had with him, Governor Wilson
understood---and was troubled by---the devastating impact these cuts
would have had on our constituency.  He also decided it was not wise to forgo
so much federal money by reducing our budget.  Consequently, the State
matching funds for the Department of Rehabilitation were restored!

Fortunately, our programs and services were maintained and there were no
staff layoffs.

And, the Governor's proposed budget reflects a continuation of that
commitment, including the preservation of the Orientation Center for the
Blind.

Although Rehabilitation is one of the smaller departments in state
government, it provides the most significant impact of any department on
the lives of persons with disabilities.  It alone offers viable options for
living independently and working competitively within the community. 
Every dollar invested in rehabilitation services is returned in tax
savings!

CONCLUSION:

If I come to the Department with a particular perspective, it is that I will
encourage individuals with disabilities, and organizations representing
their interests, to assist me.   welcome consumer participation at the
Department of Rehabilitation!  

As a person with a disability, I feel that my life experiences and those of
others with disabilities are critically important in assuring that the
Department is responsive to persons with all disabilities.

Quite frankly, based on my own perceptions and experiences of other
consumers, it is clear to me that there is still much work to be done to
improve attitudes toward people with disabilities.  

What we have discovered in the past few years, and especially with the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, is that working together we
can achieve a great deal in improving the civil rights and quality of life
for Californians with disabilities.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Senators.  At this point, I would be happy
to answer any questions.

                          ----------------

                       FAREWELL TO A FRIEND

                          by George Fogarty

     Robert Walter "Bob" Campbell, the second president of the California
Council of the Blind, died on Christmas Eve after a series of heart attacks. 
He is gone, but will not be forgotten.  Though our lives are finite, our
deeds, while here, weave a timeless pattern.  The beauty and the good that we
fashion cannot be dimmed by death.  Because Bob touched the lives of so many
of us, he remains a part of our lives as we did of his.  

Because of my long association with Bob, I was asked to submit an article in
The Blind Californian telling his many accomplishments.  To do so and
merely tell of these would be for me an exercise in futility.  It could only
tell many of the things and little or nothing of the significance, which is
the true essence of Bob's many monumental contributions in a lifetime of
service to others.  There is only one way I can write about him, and that is
personally; for he has been a very important part of my life as I have of his,
and must be presented this way.  So, pardon me as I reminisce through the
years.

I first met Bob in the late summer of 1926, when he enrolled at the California
School for the Blind in Berkeley, some two years after losing his sight.  A
year prior to this, while in the eighth grade, he picked up an object on his
way home from school to examine it.  It exploded in his eye, and he lost the
sight of that one eye.  It was a dynamite cap which had been carelessly left
at a construction site.  A year later, on a Saturday morning, tragedy struck
again.  He was two miles out on the ocean, fishing with a friend.  As they
were fishing, he suffered a retinal detachment in his remaining good eye. 
Saying nothing to his friend, for Bob was like that even then, he suggested
that his friend take over the rowing.  By the time they got back to shore,
Bob was totally blind.  He had "joined the Club", as we used to say.  At the
time, he was a freshman in high school; and, though he continued for a while
longer, he realized it wasn't working out.  So, his coming to Berkeley was a
step that changed his life and his destiny.

Attending a residential school, as we did, meant living together twenty-four
hours a day; we considered each other very much like a family, as I imagine
service-men did after training and campaigning together.

We had quite a crowd in our immediate group in those days:  Chick tenBroek
who, some five degrees later, became the head of the Speech Department at
the University of California in Berkeley, and was then addressed as Dr.
Jacobus tenBroek.  There was Bill Gerry, who became very successful as a
piano tuner and tuning technician, and who kept the pianos at the gambling
joints in Reno in tune.  His son Bill is now blazing a trail as an electrical
engineer, though blind, working at the Pacific Medical Center in San
Francisco devising electronic gadgets that have enabled those without
sight to procure jobs that would have been denied otherwise.  Charlie Brown
became head of programs for the blind in Oregon; Lamar Archibald held an
important position dealing with economics in the Federal Government in
Washington, D.C. at the time of his death; Harry Runnion, one of the first
three blind rehabilitation officers, as they were called then, was employed
by the State as the result of the newly enacted Barden-LaFollette Act in
1943; Frank Nightingale and Frank Bornowski were both successful
chiropractors in the San Diego area.  Also about a year or so behind us were
Charlie Buell, known to most of us, and Kingsley Price, who became a Doctor
of Philosophy, teaching in several universities and finally winding up his
teaching career in the United States at Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore.  He is currently, to the best of my knowledge, at Oxford, England,
doing research in his chosen field.  Finally, in our group was Russ Darbo,
who is alive and well and living in Southern California.  

There were also many delightful and very successful girls in our group,
many of them known to you.  However, remember that I am writing of the late
1920's, and being a gentleman, I may know some of their birthdays, but never
their age.  This is too bad, too, for they are most deserving of equal time. 
But I digress, for it is of Bob that I set out to tell.

Bob and Chick had some great adventures on the weekends while at CSB.  These
I missed, being a five-day student and going home on the weekends.  They
would go off the school grounds and walk to Oakland, very often attending
the Fulton Theater, a well-known place where live dramas were performed. 
Since canes were not used in those days, they would fall in a ditch
occasionally, never failing to climb out again.  One Saturday they decided
to visit a relative of Bob's who lived in Concord, some twenty miles away,
and they did it  by walking all the way.

One Thanksgiving weekend these constant companions went up to Garber Park,
nearly a mile from the campus, shortly after dinner on Wednesday, carrying
three or four volumes of the Count of Monte Cristo (a 21-volume book in
Braille) and planning a night stay beside a wood-fire that they built prior
to the beginning of the tale.  When they had finished reading these volumes
sometime the next morning, they returned to campus to enjoy a sumptuous
Thanksgiving dinner after which they picked up the next series of volumes
for the following afternoon and evening.  And so it went for the remainder of
the weekend, returning for periodic meals, giving reports of their progress,
and returning to the park with additional volumes.  When it was time to
return for the evening meal on Sunday, they did so in triumph, having
completed all twenty-one volumes.

In their senior year in high school, Bob and Chick, convinced that school
was leading nowhere, decided to leave school and set up their own broom shop
and chair-caning businesses in their home communities--common enterprises
for blind men in those days--Chick's in the San Joaquin Valley and Bob's in
Southern California.  So a few months prior to their graduation, they left
without telling anyone.  It took a special trip by Dr. Perry to their homes
and their families to get them back a semester later.  Little did Bob know
then of the importance and the value this detour would bring to his
counseling career in future years.  So it was that they graduated a semester
later than the rest of us.

Now to many of those reading this account, much of what's written so far may
seem trivial and of little importance in view of Bob's later
accomplishments.  However, to many others, particularly those who have
attended residential schools, all of this strikes a nostalgic note and a
meaningful one.  

Bob entered the University of California, Berkeley, in 1931 to 1934 and left
in his junior year to marry his college reader, Anne, and to make a home for
both of them.  He had not only pursued learning while in college, but had
also learned pursuing as well.  

He opened up a cabinet shop in Southern California and made most of the
products he sold.  Unfortunately, though he worked diligently to make a go
of it, it was by then the heart of the depression, you'll recall, and the odds
were stacked against him.  Then they returned to the Bay Area in 1935, where
Bob went to work for the San Francisco Examiner in their circulation
department, and by then they had their son David.  Bob supplemented his
earnings by establishing and building a very successful magazine
subscription agency.  When it had reached the point that provided a
sufficient income to adequately support the family, Bob then, and not until
then for this was always his way, returned to the University to complete his
A. B. degree.  He graduated in 1942.  He then went into the graduate school of
social welfare and obtained his social service certificate in June 1943.  It
is well to point out, I think, that the only financial assistance given him
during his last two-and-a-half years of college was the Reader Fund for
blind college students.  This is further proof of the kind of man that he
was.

A month following graduation, Bob had three job offers.  On the first
position offered he placed second on the list of rehabilitation counselors
for the blind for the state of California, a new civil service position
resulting, as pointed out before, from the passage of the Barden-LaFollette
Act specifically for the purpose of providing counseling, placing blind
persons in employment, and giving preference to blind counselors qualified
to do the job; the second position offered was as psychological consultant
at Dibble Hospital in Menlo Park to work with the newly blinded soldiers of
World War II.  Since Bob had entered college as a pre-med student and
planned to go into osteopathy, which was later closed to the blind, he
seemed particularly suited for the job; the third position offered was Field
Worker at the California School for the Blind.  This position was the brain-
child of Dr. Newel Perry, then Director of Advanced Studies at the School,
who had seen hundreds of very promising students graduate from the school
into a life of idleness, because there was no one to intercede for them in
the unreceptive world of competitive employment.  It was this challenge that
Bob accepted, so typical of him, for it presented a challenge yet to be
attempted.  A more ideal choice could not have been made.

On a salary of $250 a month and an expense account of $1,200 a year, Bob and
Anne went from one end of the State to the other, sleeping in their Nash
which had a bed in the back, and more often than not, contacting former
students of the School, some not having been heard from for more than twenty
years.  They would spend as much as a month or six weeks in an area, seeking
work for them and making other contacts for services in their behalf.  After
being on the job for a few years, he submitted an article to the Outlook,a
monthly magazine in print and in braille put out by the American Foundation
for the Blind, telling of his activities and accomplishments in which he
listed some 117 placements that had resulted from the creation of this
position--I, for one, can vouch for this.  During my first two years with
Rehab, Bob and I would meet on an average of two or three days a week and
pound the pavements from nine until four, or later, looking for jobs for
those former pupils of the School, who were clients of both of us, for in
those days they were our best prospects.  Though Bob and I enjoyed each
other's company during our school years, this was the beginning of our close
working relationship, loyal friendship and rare understanding that
continued through the years--a friendship that greatly influenced the
lives of both of us.  Of course, we didn't always find jobs even though these
were the war years, when they said that any warm body was eligible, but we
had a hell of a good time trying.

There was one contact we made that I'll never forget.  It was a steamy
September afternoon, when we walked into this brewery in the heart of the
Mission in the warm belt of San Francisco, I even remember the name, "Regal
Pale", and we were greeted by a Southern belle from Tennessee.  Her voice was
dripping with mint juleps.  She was the boss's secretary, and it was easy to
understand why.  While waiting for the boss to return,  she and I indulged in
a bit of social banter, and Bob drank in her liquid tones.  When the boss
came in, much too soon, he took us on a tour of the plant, during the course
of which he offered us a giant schooner of ice-cold beer.  But because we had
two scheduled calls yet to make, we very reluctantly rejected the offer. 
What made it worse was that these calls amounted to nothing and would have
been better omitted.

In 1947, when Dr. Perry retired from his position as Director of Advanced
Studies at the School for the Blind, Bob was his natural successor for
supervising the high school program and for administering the State's
Reader Fund for Blind College Students, then solely the responsibility of
the School.  This marvelous program which Dr. Perry had developed in its
first twenty-five years, Bob experienced not only as a student at CSB, but
also as a recipient of the Reader Fund, while attending college.  These
things, coupled with his vast work experience and unique undertakings,
enabled him to give sound and meaningful counsel to his students.  He taught
his students how to study by closely supervising their assignments each
night, by getting them actively involved in their preparation, and by
teaching them how to use readers--a technique of great value in their
college and working years.  Also something else of even greater importance,
he would help each student to find himself as an individual; to teach him to
think; and to help him lose himself in interests, activities, and ideas
larger and more enduring than he was.

In addition to the fifteen hours of supervised study programs each week,
private counseling given the students during the day, and the school
visitations, Bob largely spent the mornings taking care of the
correspondence and records pertaining to the supervision of the State's
Reader Fund.  It meant receiving all reader bills sent in each month,
recording the hours and sums sent by each student each month, then sending
them on to Sacramento for payment, and also following up on any problems
that might arise concerning them.  Some semesters Bob would have as many as
120 students throughout the State attending some thirty colleges.  He would
make an effort to visit them in their school community and consult with them
and the school personnel when needed, discussing their programs and choice
of careers.

The close relationship that Bob and I had formed during our job-finding
expeditions made it most inviting, when I was asked by the school
superintendent Dr. French to accept the position that Bob had so ably
justified.  For the next twenty-three years, Bob and I shared the small
office that we used and would, when possible, schedule our field trips
jointly, he to see his college students and I to visit our former pupils and
help them to seek work and further vocational training, when needed.  On
these occasions the day would go something like this:  While Bob stayed in
the air-conditioned hotel, having his stimulating students come in to
regale him with their accomplishments, I would go forth into the smog-
smitten streets to undertake an arduous journey to some unknown area and to
seek out the distressed and troubled.  On my return usually well after dusk
had fallen, we would proceed to the bar before a late dinner.  And while I
cried in my beer, Bob would recount the hours spent in my absence while
sipping a martini or two.  Many of our evenings away from home were spent
with representatives of the organized blind.  This was making use of another
legacy left by Dr. Perry, telling him of the needs they found that were being
unmet in their areas.  These activities brought us in contact with many
interesting and promising people, so as the years went by, we became quite
well known in many areas of the State and, by the very nature of our work,
were welcomed in most of them.  

In 1952 Bob and Anne purchased a lot a few blocks east of the School, a lot so
steep others said nothing could be built there.   The alleged lot was really
a part of the hillside of Camel Hill, which rose steeply behind the School
campus.  Bob, in his amazing way, devised a plan and equipment that enabled
them to begin their dream house, at odd hours and weekends, and moved in as
soon as it was tenable.  Because of its proximity to Bob's site of
employment, it enabled him and his son David to have more time to devote to
its completion.  Therefore, the magnificent home they had visualized a long
time ago was completed some four years later.  It has recently been
appraised at more than $400,000 by the appraiser who commented on the
beautiful mahogany paneling throughout.  Among other things, Bob and Anne
fashioned and erected the thirty-five steps leading to their front door and
the additional thirteen steps leading to the back.  That home was an amazing
feat which was featured in the "PG&E Progress", a magazine published each
month by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company throughout Northern
California, and sent out with its bills each month.

Anne, who had been Bob's constant companion while traveling throughout the
State contacting former pupils and also through those happy years of
building their home, became seriously ill a few years later, spending her
last twenty years in a bed-ridden state.  She had, sad to say, little
opportunity to enjoy the beautiful curtains and rugs she had made by hand,
or the home she had worked so hard along with Bob to create.

Dr. Perry, the great force behind the organized blind movement in
California, founded the California Council of the Blind in the fall of 1934
and served as its first president during the first 18 years of its
existence.  This is another inspiring story that hopefully will be told some
day.  When he resigned at the age of 80, he did so on the condition that Bob
be named his successor, much to the disappointment and chagrin of Dr.
tenBroek then serving as the Council's First Vice-President. 

As the second President of the Council, Bob served in this capacity for 
5-1/4 years after being elected for a second term in the fall of 1958.  During
Bob's tenure, the Council knew great success, particularly in the
legislature.  In 1957 the Council submitted 20 bills, and all of them were
signed by the governor and became law.  Thirteen of these bills pertained to
the liberalization of the Aid Laws concerning the blind; the other seven
pertained to education, vending stands, the Orientation Center, and guide
dogs.  In addition to legislation, the Council was prominently represented
on many local and state panels dealing with administrative matters and
other studies pertaining to policy.

Because of the length of this article, space does not permit the telling of
his many other accomplishments such as his other organizational
activities, while serving in office or on boards of the Associated Blind of
California (later the American Council of the Blind of California, of which
he was a charter member at its initial convention in St. Louis in 1961), his
many contributions to the success of the ACB, and as director of the Lillie
Perry Foundation for the Blind (Dr. Perry's final act in behalf of his
fellow-blind was setting up the Foundation, naming it after his beloved
blind wife Lillie, and making the initial contribution toward its success in
the form of a generous bequest in his will).  This Foundation was to be a
loan fund to assist blind persons seeking to go into business or to enter a
profession, providing long-term, low-interest loans.  This was later
extended to include the providing of scholarships to deserving blind
college students, particularly those in post-graduate work.  There were
those many years in which Bob was actively engaged in legislative
activities as well as those serving on various boards created by state
agencies serving the blind.  I was working closely with Bob in all of this
and it brought additional ties of friendship to both of us.

In 1958, there was a tragic power-struggle throughout the country within
the organized blind movement, the results of which are still painful to
recall.  Though I shall not dwell upon it, yet, to say nothing of it would be
to omit from this nostalgic journey perhaps the most vital reason why Bob
will forever remain a man apart from all others with me, for I was there and
saw it all, saw him in all his magnificence.

The California Council of the Blind was founded on the principle that the
blind could through their COLLECTIVE voices, experience, and united effort,
bring about changes in the public mind which would lead to equality of
opportunity and security.  For many years we progressed along these paths
and made great strides in the achievement of these objectives.  All of this
suddenly came to a halt, completely losing sight of our objectives and
giving ourselves over to internal strife.

Let us not forget that the health and growth of any organization is
dependent upon the fullest possible participation of ALL of its members. 
Whenever there is resistance on the part of a few, to full participation, in
order that the few can maintain control and wield power for self-
grandizement, conflict is bound to result.

The conflict began on the national level, and was carried to our state
organization as well as to many other state organizations by the president
of the National Federation, in order to maintain his position of power and
control.  When some delegates of the National Federation sought to bring
about greater participation among the membership, the President looked
upon this as a threat to his control.

Because of the attempt on the part of the leadership of the Federation to
control the affairs of our Council, we could no longer remain a united
group.  Every means was brought to bear on the local organizations of the
Council to secure voting power, to create dissension, and to discredit the
then present Council administration.  The result of this civil war was
disaster, not only to the Council, but also to the National Federation as
well.  Bob was unwilling to employ such tactics and asked that his
supporters refrain from doing so.  To respond in-kind, he reasoned, would
result in the dissolution of the Council.  He was willing to expend every
effort necessary to achieve the worthwhile purposes of the organization,
but unwilling to participate in the destructive practices that could only
lead to disaster--which it did.  In view of these conditions, he believed
that the interests of the blind of California and the Nation would be best
served, at that time, by the withdrawal of the leaders who had become the
symbols of this controversy.

Serving as this State's delegate to the convention of the NFB through those
terrible days in Boston, Bob sought to retain and preserve the democratic
principles upon which the Council had been founded, and refused to concede
to those who sought to have it otherwise; therefore, he was subjected to
ridicule and condemnation which one had to witness to believe.  Through it
all and the months that followed, he stood fast to his principles quietly,
resolutely, and with dignity, showing a courage and a conviction that were
beautiful to see.  He lost the battle then, but many of those who had opposed
him at that time have come to appreciate at a great price the wisdom of his
words.

With Anne's death five years ago, Bob largely lived an isolated life,
remaining in the home he loved so much and making the most of each day as it
came.  Since my return to the Bay Area more than a year ago, Bob and I have
gotten together at least one day a week and over a beer or two reminisced
about other days, something that never failed to brighten Bob's life anew. 
Bob's many friends will be comforted to know that Bob welcomed death when it
came.  He was convinced that he had done all that he could and done it
exceedingly well.  It was truly a blessing that it came when it did, for he
could never have returned to his beloved home which was the part of him that
was now largely his reason for living.

Yes, he is gone and will not be forgotten by his many friends, each in our
own way.  His many-sided skills, his amazing accomplishments, and the many
other things that made him unique among us will all be remembered, each in
our own way.  There are so many things to recall:  His warm and winning
personality, his calmness and dignity of behavior, his strong sense of
fairness, and high integrity--however stressful the moment.  His mind was
keen and analytical; one need only read any of the hundreds of resolutions
he wrote through the years to be clearly aware of this.  His ability to
express himself clearly and concisely got the attention of others to listen
and to think.  As president of the CCB, he displayed a high degree of
organizational ability, a fact borne out by its record during those years. 
Though totally blind, Bob built his home with his own hands, virtually
unaided; it stands as a monument to a rare and unusual man.

It is said that we know ourselves through others, and I knew Bob best as he
did me.  Through the years we journeyed together, we saw in each of us much
that we liked in each other.  We found strength and purpose and action
through each other, and found a loyalty and assurance perhaps not otherwise
known, a meaning and purpose of life that has made it good.  No, I will not
forget him, for to do so would be to forget myself. 

                          ----------------
                              

                             FROM THE WORKPLACE

                    CEA Employment Survey Results (Part II)

                        by Mitchell Pomerantz


This is the second column dealing with the results of the Employment Survey
distributed by the Committee on Employment Assistance (CEA).  In the
previous column, I shared the responses to questions 1 through 19.  This
article will spotlight the more interesting and/or cogent comments offered
by survey participants and address issues raised in question 20, which
asked for "other comments on employment of blind and visually impaired
people".  

For the sake of brevity most comments will be edited, not complete direct
quotes.  Responses have been divided into four general categories:  personal
adjustment, attitudes, education/rehabilitation, and employer-related.  A
few of the lengthier comments have also been included where appropriate.  In
a couple of instances, reference to the name of a specific organization has
been deleted in order to protect the anonymity of respondents.  Such
deletions are in parentheses.

Personal Adjustment:

It is important to have good skills in adjustment to blindness including
mobility, Braille, typing, etc. ... It's taken me a long time to really feel
comfortable on my job but I honestly believe that with time, good work
habits, and so forth, blind people can be accepted.  I think that it's really
important that we don't put ourselves down if we're not accepted and it's
also important that we maintain our self esteem and not have it totally
affected by the kind of work we're doing. ... I think that a lot of us could be
employed if we had self-esteem and didn't give up too easily.  I have always
been able to find a job when I looked hard. ... Be persistent; acquire
education and knowledge. ... I think that most any job can be done by most
anyone who has the ability and determination and who is given the
opportunity to acquire the necessary education, training and special skills
needed for his/her chosen field of endeavor.  I hope that all blind and
visually impaired people who are employed will consider it our obligation
and privilege to assist others in achieving their goals of self support.

Attitudes:

"Higher-ups" in this school district are not prejudice-free.  However, this
is the first job I've held where prejudice against blindness has not been an
issue.  This is still the No.1 problem for job seekers and workers. ... People
feel if you are blind that you have a mental problem, or that you are
incompetent and can't function. ... It is very hard to get an employer to hire
you.  If you are competing for the same job with sighted people, they choose
them first. ... Being blind, a woman and an older person are three strikes
against me if I had to find new employment. ... It's a cruel world out there.  I
find people critical and rudeness is shown daily.  Lack of vision is
unacceptable among many who see and they reject those who cannot. ... High
visibility is essential.  To this end, it is extremely useful to volunteer
for many community activities i.e., speaking to classes, demonstrating
equipment, etc. ... I really don't think it's harder for visually impaired
persons than the sighted to get a job.  For example, and I might be a unique
case, I had about three different employers offer me jobs.

One respondent commented at length: It is not easy for a blind person to get
a job as a choir director in churches.  I am certain that many of the
churches that turned me down over the years did so because of my blindness. 
This holds true for singing engagements as well, especially as a guest
soloist with churches and/or orchestras.  I have no doubt whatsoever that
as a sighted person I would have fared substantially better as a
professional  musician.

Education/Rehabilitation:

Several blind persons were employed at the facility where I worked, but I
was the first.  I believe that in any training program for blind people,
emphasis must be placed on grooming and attitude as well as proper
vocational training. ... I've been fortunate to get through school and get a
good job.  Although Rehab helped some with education costs, success was
despite, rather than because of, DR and special education programs. ... I wish
Rehab would be more responsive to my needs in helping me teach piano at
home.  I could use a word processor, computer, copy machine for enlarging, a
"silent page" to alert me to phone calls and an answering machine.

Any discussion of rehabilitation usually engenders direct and poignant
comments.  Three somewhat longer responses seem very much to the point:  I
think California has one of the worst rehab systems in the country because
when I was working as a grocery bagger in a supermarket and a dish washer in
a restaurant, Rehab would not help me with my present schooling.  They would
rather use my "transferrable skills"--dish washer/bag boy--to find me a job
earning minimum wage or slightly above; keeping me on Social Security,
rather than helping me with schooling so I can get a substantial job and
higher earnings.  Therefore, I would no longer be eligible for SSI.  Wouldn't
that make more sense?  The State is paying more to me in benefits in six
months than it would if it helped me pay for tuition.

As of May 1991, I worked for (fast food restaurant chain) for almost two
years.  This was supposedly a temporary job found by (private agency for the
blind) with further permanent employment to be found at a later date.  Rehab
was to have assisted in this. 

After starting that job I was given very little assistance from either
agency in finding the equipment to keep this job.  The only way that I was
able to acquire this equipment--a bill reader to do cashier work--was to
contact the State Consumer Affairs section in the Attorney General's Office. 
It was the threat of having the complaint in hand and ready to send in that
finally got the bill reader delivered.  Even after receiving this device,
there was increasing prejudice toward a blind person at (restaurant).  I was
put on the last register "out of the way" where the noise was intolerable
from the beeping of the French fry cooker which affected my hearing.  Due to
the noise and an allergy caused by background smoke, along with the cold
from fans and windows, I was forced to resign.  Many times while I was there
I asked State Rehab and (private agency) to assist me in finding other work. 
They turned a deaf ear and refused to give me any assistance.  I am now
trying to recover both physically and emotionally from this ordeal and in
the future, I hope to start some type of legal career.

I have found my career path to be the most disappointing area of my life.  I
got a Master's in English approximately 20 years ago and I worked on a
Doctorate.  One mistake was getting a liberal arts degree even then and
entering that field when there was a glut of teachers.  I did some work in
graduate school as a teaching assistant.  I left school before completing my
Doctorate and did not have good job-seeking skills.  I sent out about 300 job
letters and made the mistake--at the urging of others--of mentioning my
blindness.  I did a lot of informational interviews based on the advice of
Richard Bolles * but still didn't get any job offers.  After several years
without employment, I took a word processing course and found employment
with a university.  

Accommodations were provided.  I wanted to use my education so I began
looking for a more satisfying position.  Ultimately, I realized that "a job
did not define who I was".  I think that blind people have to work twice as
hard as their sighted counterparts to be totally accepted in the job and to
be recognized.

Employer-related:

More education of potential employers is needed because of their ignorance
about the abilities of the blind. ... It is difficult to find out if you didn't
qualify for a job because of your visual handicap.  I don't feel that one is
given an honest answer to inquiries about why one wasn't selected for a job.
... 

My job can be done by people with limited vision.  Other opportunities might
exist for totally blind people as word-processing technicians or in
administrative capacities. ... The struggle for getting and maintaining jobs
continues.  Acceptance by co-workers and supervision alike is still an
ongoing battle.  In the public sector--in my experience at least--upward
mobility possibilities and reasonable accommodation are "iffy" at best, and
discrimination is still rampant. ... I feel that most blind people are not
fully accepted by their employers as top management candidates even though
they are well educated and highly skilled.  This applies to me especially. ...
I was laid off from my last job in April of '91.  I continue searching for
employment but work is difficult to get because employers know little if
anything about adaptive equipment.

A number of other, more general comments deserve reprinting:  I think
everyone should be given a chance but sometimes without the right equipment
it is an impossibility. ... I would like to see a qualified blind individual or
vendor placed in BEP administration. ... I am not employed.  I am a Registered
Nurse and when my vision decreased I was unable to do this work.  I still
have a driver's license but will eventually be unable to renew it.  At this
time, I do not know what I will do as there is only one bus in and out of town.
... I was a Bookkeeper and would have liked training for a different
position. ... Jobs in (rural) County have been difficult to find in the first
place, and things are complicated by the fact that a night shift is not
feasible for totally blind people because of the lack of frequent public
transportation and availability of car pooling options.  Sometimes it seems
that discrimination is at work.

Let me now briefly address a couple of questions which were asked by survey
participants.  One respondent asked if the topic of transportation could be
addressed in a future column.  I could, although I'm not sure how to approach
it.  Depending on where one lives, access to the work place can range from
"excellent" to "nonexistent".  As a city boy born and raised, I often ask
those who live in more rural settings about the availability of
transportation, public and otherwise.  While I'd love to live away from the
"big city", it doesn't seem feasible while my wife and I are both employed.  I
would encourage further discussion of this issue from you, the readers of
this column.

Another individual wanted to know how equal employment
opportunity/affirmative action would relate to recruitment of blind and
visually impaired persons.  With the advent of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, employers with 25 or more employees (beginning this year)
cannot discriminate against persons with disabilities.  Does this mean
employers will do more recruiting of the disabled?  Probably.  Keep in mind
however, that the Employment section, Title I, of the ADA was patterned after
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and is therefore a "nondiscrimination"
rather than an "affirmative action" statute.  This means that as long as
employers handle their recruitment activities in a similar fashion for all
minorities including the disabled, they will be within the law.  I suspect
that, with all the attention ADA has focussed on persons with disabilities,
more employers will increase their out-reach recruitment efforts.                
                    

One participant inquired concerning the kinds of jobs which can be
performed by blind and visually impaired people.  I sincerely believe that
other than those jobs which obviously require sight (eg., truck driver and
pilot), there aren't that many positions which we can't do!  I feel strongly
that it is to our disadvantage to think in terms of a "list of jobs for the
blind".  After all, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles lists around 30,000
different job titles.  To limit our thinking to 300 or even 3,000 jobs seems
counterproductive.

On a related matter: another participant asked whether there is any record
of the occupational titles and job descriptions of members which can be
made available to students interested in a particular career.  Neither the
CCB nor this Committee has ever kept such a list.  The American Foundation
for the Blind does maintain a computerized data-base showing somewhere in
excess of 1,000 different jobs currently being performed by blind people. 
You may contact AFB for further information at 
212-620-2079.      
  
                          ----------------

           THE STUDENTS' PERSPECTIVE:  "CHARLOTTE'S WEB" 

                          by Kenneth Frasse

The month of February brought some much needed rains to California, and it
also brought in a new program for the Blind Students of California.

As some students are painfully aware, Disabled Student Services(DSS)
programs throughout the state vary in the quality and execution of those
services.  There is also a lack in the area of student application,
retention, and graduation tracking, a policy mandated by the federal and
state government for Educational Opportunity Programs (EOP).  While blind
and visually impaired students are not yet considered a minority, there is a
great need for a system that would encourage post-secondary attendance and
promote employment of graduating students; a system that the EOP minorities
currently enjoy.  Hence, the birth of a friendly, networking database...
CHARLOTTE'S WEB.

There are eight major aspects, or entities, which CHARLOTTE'S WEB will
adopt:  1) blind student services available at all of the state, private and
community post-secondary institutions in California; 2) particularly
strong programs for blind students supported by individual campuses
within these institutions; 3) internships available at these institutions
which will be of benefit, not only as preliminary employment, but also as
work experience for resume` material; 4) tracking application of blind
students at these institutions to promote greater assimilation of blind
individuals into educational training; 5) tracking retention of blind
students to ensure that services and access are maintained; 6) tracking
graduation in an effort to provide the graduating blind student with as
much material and information as possible concerning employment, and to
assist those students by networking with organizations whose expertise is
in employment; 7) scholarships available for post-secondary education; 8) a
centralized source of current adaptive equipment available on the market as
well as upcoming products, the cost of equipment and support information
pertinent to the application of the equipment.

CHARLOTTE'S WEB is unique for it will be centralized, and it will be entirely
accessible to students.  All that the students need to do is send in a form
that indicates their major field of study and their interests.  They will
receive information indicating the institutions that excel in that
particular field, the availability and quality of disabled services,
graduate programs supported by that institution, scholarships,
internships, local CCB chapter information and much more.

While CHARLOTTE'S WEB will charge a nominal fee to students to maintain the
intensive data input and updating of information, any students who are or
become members of the Blind Students of California will have free access to
the system.  In this way, the BSC hopes to provide a much-needed service and,
at the same time, promote a continual and easy manner of exchanging ideas
and concerns within the blind and visually impaired student community.

Kenneth Frasse, 8200 Lake Forest Drive, Sacramento, CA 95826, 
916-381-8787.

                          ----------------


                           BULLETIN BOARD

                         by Winifred Downing


>From Dialogue, Winter, 1991:America at Large is a new large-print magazine
that is being published quarterly for a subscription rate of $15.00.  It
offers four-color art work, photos, graphics, and two-column text that is
set in clear 14-point type.  It features articles on personalities, health
and fitness, travel, environment, and social issues and has regular columns
on bridge, gardening, cooking, crossword puzzles, and more.  Write to
Bolinda Press, America, P.O. Box 14402, Shawnee, KS 
66215-0402; (800) 848-8810.

The Reader's Digest on flexible disk is now available free.  Write to APH
Magazine Department,  P.O. Box 6389,  Louisville, KY 40206.  The braille
edition will still be available free, and the cassette edition can still be
procured for $16.80 per year. 

Jay B. McMartin manufactures and sells SMC SAP (secondary audio
programming) channel decoders that enable monaural TV's and VCR's to
receive Descriptive Video Service programming on public television
stations.  SMC offers three decoder models, priced from $63 to $128.  For
additional information contact SMC International, 2505 North 24th St., Suite
501, Omaha, NE 68110; (800) 456-9107. 

>From Lifeprints, Winter, 1991: "DVS Home Videos" is a new direct mail service
that will offer popular movies with description.  The videos will be sold
for the same retail prices that you see in video stores.  By spring, 1992, the
DVS  Home Video Catalogue is expected to list approximately 50 videos that
were selected for different ages and interests.  It will include such movies
as "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids"; "Ghost"; "Dead Poet's Society"; "Pretty Woman";
"Star Trek V"; "Alice in Wonderland"; and many more.  Viewers will not need to
have SAP (secondary audio programming) on their VCR's or TV's to hear the
description on these videocassettes.  Prices will range from $14.95 to
$29.95.  By fall of 1992 Descriptive Video Service, in cooperation with 
Recording for the Blind, expects to make home videos available for rental as
well as for sale.  For more information contact Sharon King, Outreach
Director, Descriptive Video  Service, WGBH, 125 Western Ave., Boston, MA
02134; 
617-492-2777 Extension 3490. 

>From Our Special, February, 1992: A Guide to Guide Dog Schools by Eames,
Gardiner, and Gingold describes the ten guide dog schools in the United
States.  It covers topics ranging from application procedures to contact
after graduation.  In addition, the costs and benefits of working with a
guide dog, myths about guide dogs, and the potential impact of a guide dog
on your life are discussed.  The 102-page book is available in print for
$5.00 or on NLS format cassette for $3.50.  Checks should be made payable to
Disabled on the Go (DOG) and sent to Ed and Toni Eames, 3373 N. Wishon,
Fresno, CA 93704.

The Massachusetts Association for the Blind is offering a new braille
cookbook, Sconset Cafe: A Village Cafe on Nantucket Island.  Recipes have a
gourmet bent--Marinated Shrimp and Avocado, Rice Pilaf, Chicken Piccata,
and Chocolate Raspberry Marquise.  It is in two volumes and costs $20.00. 
Write MAB Braille Dept., 202 Ivy St., Brookline, MA 02146; (617) 738-5110. 

>From The Matilda Ziegler Magazine, January, 1992: "Running Q&A" is a cassette
tutorial introducing visually impaired people to the powerful Q&A database. 
The tutorial is designed to explain how the program works and how it
responds using a speech synthesizer.  The cassette plays at normal speed on
a single track format and costs $20.00.  A supplemental disk with sample
databases, batch files, and speech configurations for the Artic Vision and
Business Vision is also available for an additional $5.00.  Orders will be
shipped free matter unless $5 is enclosed for UPS shipping.   Order from
Steve Bauer, 3908 W. 18th St., N. Witchita, KS 67203; (316) 943-9953. 

Send contributions to this column to Winifred Downing, 1587 38th Ave., San
Francisco, CA 94122. 

                      THE STEVEN HAZZARD STORY

                         by Robert J. Acosta


Steven Hazzard was reunited with his guide dog Starsky on Monday, January
20, 1992.  We hope and pray that this marks the end of what can only be called
an unpleasant misadventure for this guide dog user, his friends in the
California Council of the Blind, and all who care about guide dogs as a
splendid method of mobility for the blind.  It is hoped that all of us may
draw lessons from Steven's experiences.  I think there are lessons for all of
us guide dog users and cane travelers alike.

But first, let us talk about Steven Hazzard.  Steven is a reserved fellow
whose activities include membership in our West Los Angeles Chapter.  He is
a member of AA and should be proud of his record of achievement in that
organization.  Having a background in counseling work and gaining such
distinctions as being named Rehabilitation Client of 1986 by the State of
California, last summer Steven completed his training as a computer
programmer at the Westside Independent Living Center.  One poignant fact of
the loss of his guide dog last August was the turmoil which resulted in all
aspects of Steven's life--just as he was entering the critical period of job
hunting.  All blind people are too familiar with the rigors of job searching. 
We know that when we are out there job hunting, we must be as confident and
free of outside concerns as possible. 

So this was Steven's situation on August 18, 1991: full of hope, he was
prepared for a positive and productive future.  No one could have foreseen
the screwball, dramatic twist that Steven's life would take late on that
Sunday evening when he detoured from his route home in order to get some
cigarettes.

It was on busy, bustling Olympic Boulevard  in West Los Angeles that
Steven's luck took a downturn.  Confronted with an unexpected barricade
because of construction, he was slowly making his way as the dog hesitated
because of conditions at the location.  There seemed to be barricades
everywhere.  Suddenly, he was rudely accosted by a yelling, threatening man
who screamed at him, hit him in the face, and kicked him in the groin.  Steven
believes this fellow was out of control on drugs of some kind and never even
understood that Steven is blind.  Steven called out for help, asking for the
police, though his assailant fled the scene.  Knocked to the ground in the
attack, Steven struggled to regain his composure; then, some passers-by
came to his aid.  He was aware there were others looking on in the vicinity. 
Eventually the police did come and took his report.  It is important to
realize that in the police report Steven is identified as the victim.  One
woman complained that Starsky had been kicked by Steven, although the
police examined Starsky, but found no evidence of this.  When the police had
completed gathering information about the incident, and after it was clear
that Steven was all right--and Starsky was all right--Steven was sent on
his way home.  Shaken by the unwarranted attack, Steven sought refuge at the
home of Joanne Pomerantz, who observed that Starsky was completely normal
in his behavior and usual affectionate attitude toward his master.  What
should have been an unfortunate experience late one Sunday night in Los
Angeles--something most of us have gone through in one way or another-
-turned into a donnybrook of massive proportions because of the bizarre
turns of events caused by a cast of characters that I want you to meet:  
First, there is Barbara Fabricant who calls herself a state humane officer
working for the "Humane Task Force." It turns out that there is an obscure
state law on the books that allows people like Barbara Fabricant to operate
with police powers--including gun and badge--but there is no governmental
organization which has any effective authority over these people.  We are
told that when a humane officer abuses his or her authority, it is possible
to sue for damages.  That may be true for the Los Angeles SPCA, but not the
Humane Task Force, which has no money.

Our second character is a woman who called herself "friend" to Steven
Hazzard over a period of years.  This neighbor, a so-called "friend", became
so enamored of Starsky that she tried to get Steven to give her his guide
dog!  When Starsky was first taken into custody by Guide Dogs for the Blind,
this lady wrote a fine letter of support for Steven to the school.  Soon
after, by some means which is not entirely clear, she was in contact with
Barbara Fabricant.  It was after this contact that she wrote a letter
recanting her original support and charging, among other things, that
Steven refused to feed his guide dog pizza and would not feed it even in
restaurants.  As Archie Bunker would have said, "case closed".

There are other odd characters in this cast, but these two are the featured
players, and there is no doubt they played active roles in the continued
abuse heaped upon Steven Hazzard's head.  It would take a Hollywood script
writer to figure out how they got together.  You have to wonder how idle
hands not only get into mischief, but also find others to manipulate.  These
two characters started a letter-writing campaign bombarding Guide Dogs for
the Blind with allegations about Steven's behavior toward Starsky.  At the
same time, staff members from Guide Dogs for the Blind had looked into the
situation with the perspective of people who have known Steven for years,
during his use of two different guide dogs, and they did not believe abuse
had taken place.  They even took Starsky to a veterinarian who flatly
reported there had been no abuse.

"Captain" Fabricant (that's what she calls herself) pressured Guide Dogs
for the Blind to remove Starsky from Steven, threatening she might take the
dog if they did not.  By this time, concerned with what might happen if he
just kept Starsky, Steven grudgingly agreed that the school could protect
Starsky in a secure environment.  Nobody thought this would last longer
than a short time.  But when the school returned Starsky to Steven, and they
did a work-out in Steven's neighborhood, a couple of "harpies" descended
upon them and demanded Guide Dogs for the Blind not return the dog.  At this
time, there were serious questions about whether or not Steven and Starsky
could ever be safe in this neighborhood.  At any rate, the school returned
Starsky to their kennel rather than take any risk at all.  They were under
fire from all these people.  (Around Los Angeles, we soon learned, there are a
bunch of people referred to as "humaniacs", and these people are said to be
of this sort.)

"Captain" Fabricant was making dark threats about seeing Steven Hazzard in
jail for a long time; she was telling everybody she would file charges
against him.  After the school had returned Starsky to Steven the first
time, she notified the school that she would file charges against it for
contributing to animal abuse for returning the dog.  What a kettle of fish! 
Right here, let it be said that "Captain" Fabricant did refer Steven's case
to the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not file any criminal charges
against Steven Hazzard or Guide Dogs for the Blind.  As a matter of fact,
Steven recently received a letter from the City Attorney reassuring him
that no charges will be filed.

I wish we could report that Guide Dogs for the Blind stood with their guide
dog user, Steven Hazzard, in resisting the actions and tactics of "Captain"
Fabricant as she worked to prevent a blind man from using his guide dog.  I
think they wanted to do so, and I found the staff that I talked to, from
Director Bruce Benzler on down, sympathetic to Steven's situation.  But, at
some level the decision was made basically to prove that Steven did not
abuse Starsky.  This is all too close to the classic question, "When did you
stop beating your wife?" A lot of the decision-making in this case was taken
over by the Board of Directors of Guide Dogs for the Blind.  Whatever the
qualities of the individuals who make up this Board, their decisions came
off too much as a matter of a group of businessmen whose expertise does not
rest in dealing with human beings--and especially blind people at that.

To begin, we had the independent investigation.  What a travesty!  Guide Dogs
for the Blind spent a lot of money to hire a private detective agency which
came up with absolutely nothing.  "Captain" Fabricant had "ordered" her so-
called witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.  The agency's only
real recommendation came from Steven Hazzard himself--that he be given a
lie detector test.  Let me tell you that I've had the short course in lie
detection, finding it to be unreliable and inadmissible in many court
proceedings, not the panacea television detective stories say it is.

Then, the decision was made to employ a service which provides retired
judges to adjudicate cases.  We didn't know it at the time, but this was
Steven's big break, subjecting "Captain" Fabricant's "evidence" to an expert
in evaluating evidence.  But there were problems:  scheduling a hearing was
the basic one.  The Guide Dogs for the Blind attorney had scheduled the
hearing without granting Steven's attorney the courtesy of checking first. 
Since the Council-employed attorney was in court with another case on that
date, the hearing had to be postponed.  I must say, at this point,  that
whatever the qualities of the school's attorney, he was short on the matter
of respecting the guide dog user.  Finally, the case was heard by Judge
Wilson on December 19, 1991.  Present at the hearing were the Judge, the
school's attorney, some Guide Dogs staff, Steven Hazzard, and his Attorney,
Mark Brylski.  "Captain" Fabricant had been invited, but was a no-show; I
wonder why.

Wasting no time, Judge Wilson made his ruling at the end of the hearing.  He
found absolutely no evidence indicating that Steven Hazzard had abused
Starsky.

It would have been a near-perfect holiday season if Starsky had been
returned to Steven at that time.  But it was not to be, since the Guide Dogs
for the Blind Board of Directors had to act on the Judge's ruling.  I can only
say that the welfare of a guide dog user was held hostage by the procedures
of this Board, which finally made its decision and returned Starsky to
Steven on January 20, 1992.  On this date, the school's staff began an
intensive working period with Steven and Starsky for about two weeks to
assure that the team would be effective in travel.

In order to effect this reunion, Steven Hazzard had to sign an agreement
which seems to me little better than consenting to the conditions of
indentured servitude.  Composed by the school's attorney, it's very much the
lawyer's document.  Don't look to that fellow for human concern and
compassion.

Now, we are all very happy for Steven and also pleased to report that there
has been no further problem with the so-called "humaniacs".  I understand
that Guide Dogs for the Blind wrote to those people and cautioned them about
the situation.  However it happened, let's hope that they have been appeased. 
But there are questions to be asked and issues to be examined for the future
of guide dog users:  

1.  It's clear to me that the attorney whom the Council hired to represent
Steven did a good job.  In fact, his "Brief" in support of Steven shows that
nobody had bothered to evaluate the reports made about Steven's so-called
"abuse". But what if Steven had not had a good lawyer?  Or what if we had not
been able to afford him legal counsel?  

2.  We are aware that Guide Dogs for the Blind strives to have the most
excellent program for guide dogs anywhere.  Where was the problem in their
process?  Sure, this is the first time any of us have heard this kind of
problem.  But where was their faith in their guide dog users?  It seemed as
if there were times the School had a dual personality, for the staff whom we
talked to were supportive and hopeful--yet the reality was the painfully
slow decision-making process and too often put in terms which made me
wonder if we were talking the same language.  It is heard that  in order to
resolve human problems, a school lawyer was splitting legal hairs.  We hear
that Guide Dogs for the Blind is working on its procedures for such
emergencies, and I surely hope so.

3.  What should the response be of the organized blind in a crisis like this? 
It is not enough to condemn, deplore, or to have hysterics.  As consumers of
services from agencies for the blind, whether these agencies provide guide
dogs, Braille, reader services, etc., the organized blind must be responsible
in its relationships.  It must be said that there was a certain amount of
hysteria in this situation concerning Steven Hazzard and Starsky.  Some
people were demanding that the State of California revoke the license of
Guide Dogs for the Blind.  Steven Hazzard was being pressured to forsake
Starsky and go to another school.  He called me one evening to report that he
was being pressed to go to Sacramento to testify against the Guide Dog
Board (this pressure came from the self-proclaimed "experts" in another
organization).

I am proud of the manner in which we members of the Council responded to a
blind person in crisis.  When we were satisfied about the facts of the matter
and convinced that we could not achieve a satisfactory resolution by
interceding on Steven's behalf, we then sought legal counsel.  One of the
important aspects of this case was that legally, Steven Hazzard had few
rights regarding custody of his guide dog because he had not sought
ownership under the terms of the Guide Dog Act.  Had he done so, his
situation would have been quite different.

Finally, the Council stayed the course with Steven's refusing to be drawn
into a hysterical attack on Guide Dogs for the Blind.  We focused, and
continue to focus, on the impact of "Captain" Barbara Fabricant and her
associates.  We may believe that Guide Dogs for the Blind erred by
prolonging a difficult situation, but their record of achievements makes it
ludicrous to beat the drums for putting them out of business.

4.  What good is an ownership law if blind guide dog users don't assert their
right to ownership?  Once again, guide dog users in California and elsewhere
are reminded that no matter how warm one's feelings toward a school,
ownership is better.  Now we have another option: International Guiding
Eyes, in Southern California, is turning title of all its guide dogs over to
the users.  This option is offered to the many who prefer California guide
dog schools and standards.  Its important that we trust and have faith in
the people who train us and our guide dogs.  To own that dog, however it is
achieved, means a much greater security and certainty for our future.

5.  A new element has been added to the complexity of everyday life for blind
people.  This is, quite simply, the capacity of some in the public to engage
in mischief.  Recently, and specially since Steven Hazzard's ordeal began,
those of us concerned--guide dog users, guide dog schools, the California
Guide Dog Board--have begun discussions on what can be done to overcome
unwarranted criticism and harassment by such people.  

Sadly, at this point it seems that no easy solutions are feasible, but we
shall persevere.  I regard this issue as just part of the work we face day by
day:  To insure that blind people may exercise their right to be abroad in
the land.  With this in mind, we are making available to anyone a cassette
edition of Jacobus TenBroek monograph, THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN THE WORLD,
which remains the single best statement about this right.  

                         ----------------     


                         GDUC POSITION PAPER

TO:  State Board Of Guide Dogs For The Blind

FROM:  Cherrie Handy Pomerantz, President, 
       Guide Dog Users of California

DATE:  February 28, 1992

RE:  ISSUES SURROUNDING THE CASE OF MR. STEVEN HAZZARD


On behalf of Guide Dog Users of California, I would like to take this
opportunity to address the State Board of Guide Dogs and share the concerns
of this organization as well as our hopes for future relationships with the
Board and our three guide dog schools within California.

First, I believe that the experiences of Mr. Steven Hazzard are a frightening
commentary on our lack of appropriate mechanisms for timely and effective
resolution of complaints of any kind.  Whether the complaint is made by a
graduate, a member of the public, or the guide dog schools themselves, the
lack of an immediate means for the resolution of complaints has caused many
guide dog users to react with fear and anger toward the schools, who should
be our allies, not our adversaries.  Trust is an essential ingredient
between a guide dog user and his/her school.  The fear that "next time it
could be me" permeates the thinking of many of us in this state.  

What does this statement mean?  It reflects the knowledge that Mr. Hazzard's
dog was taken from him by his school and kept from him for well over four
months!  It reflects the fact that members of the public were seemingly
given greater credibility than a guide dog user of over 11 years standing,
who lives and works with his dog 24 hours a day.  This dog is his eyes, his
means of mobility, his ticket to getting to and from a job, or even a job
interview.  This statement reflects the knowledge that Mr. Hazzard's dog was
taken from him not once, but twice, not due to any action on his part, but
because members of the public, uneducated, biased, and insensitive, were
allowed to bring sufficient pressure on Guide Dogs for the Blind, for the
school to deem it necessary, for a second time, to repossess Mr. Hazzard's
guide dog, even though Mr. Hazzard had in his possession a letter from the
school stating that his dog had been examined by a veterinarian and was
found to be unharmed.  

As with many dark clouds, there are silver linings to be found, and  this
situation is no exception.  First, Mr. Hazzard is now back in possession of
his guide dog, Starsky.  After over 11 years as a successful guide dog user,
Mr. Hazzard has been vindicated and cleared of any suspicion of abuse or
misuse of his dog! 

The California Council of the Blind, Guide Dog Users of California, and the
Foundation for the Advancement of the Blind all played important roles in
Mr. Hazzard's time of need.  We provided financial and emotional support to
Mr. Hazzard throughout his ordeal, assisting him in obtaining the services
of an attorney, thus demonstrating the commitment of the blind to support
one of our own, at the mercy of an ineffective, lengthy, and antiquated means
for determining the rights and wrongs of his particular set of
circumstances.

Second, a subcommittee has been formed, consisting of representatives from
all three guide dog schools, the California Council of the Blind, Guide Dog
Users of California, and the State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, to
develop an effective method for dispute resolution.

Third, International Guiding Eyes has made the decision to offer immediate
ownership upon graduation to all of its graduates and retroactively to all
alumni as well.  GDUC believes that IGE's decision demonstrates a true
commitment to and belief in its graduates, and we would like to take this
opportunity to commend them for this decision and to thank them for
standing with those they serve.  

In closing, there is one more issue which should be discussed, the location
for this meeting.  For all of us in GDUC this meeting is a very important one,
where matters of special import to each and every one of us will be
discussed.  But most of us can't be there.  We can't be there because Braille
Institute is in a highly inaccessible area, with limited Greyhound service
into Palm Springs and no transportation at all available out to the
Institute, save cabs or very unreliable local buses.  While we clearly
understand the limited nature of the Board's budget, it is necessary to
point out that we also have limited travel budgets.  We are very
disappointed that the Board chose such an inaccessible site to hold a
meeting of this importance.  GDUC hopes that the State Board will carefully
consider both its responsibilities to inspect guide dog schools, and the
need to be accessible to the public, when it selects its next meeting site. 

In conclusion, I believe that definite positive progress has been made in
several areas.  While the Board's choice of meeting site argues a certain
insensitivity, I do believe that the Board will make efforts in the future to
take the accessibility issue into account, when selecting a meeting
location.  Mr. Hazzard now has his guide dog restored to him.  Second,
definite steps are being taken to insure that a similar scenario does not
occur again.  Last of all, one of our three guide dog schools has made
immediate ownership a reality for its graduates.  That looks like a lot of
progress to Guide Dog Users of California!

                          ----------------


                     AROUND THE STATE AND NATION


In commemoration of the birthday of Louis Braille, Governor Pete Wilson has
proclaimed January 4, 1992 as "Braille Literacy Day in California" in
recognition of the important contributions of the braille system,  which
has brought true literacy to countless blind people and helped to enrich
their lives.  

                                * * *

THE RETURN OF THE CCBT.  The CCB t-shirt is back!  Made of comfortable, long-
lasting cotton by "Fruit of the Loom", shirt features the CCB logo circled by
the words "California Council of the Blind" in raised print and braille
lettering.  The attractive design is in red and charcoal black on a bright
aqua shirt in sizes S, M, L, XL.  Also now available in XXL featuring the same
design on a white shirt.  Visit our Spring convention booth, or order
directly from the Greater L.A. Chapter CCB, Abbey Vincent, 10834 Pickford,
Culver City, CA 90230, 213-559-4989.  Regular sizes are $11.60 and for XXL is
$12.60 (includes $1.60 shipping charges). Checks payable to CCB Greater L. A.
Chapter.  

                                * * *

Flash Trans Enterprises provides scanning, embossing, and many other
services and products to blind and visually impaired persons.  For more
details or for a product catalog call or write to Dora Cozzolino, 4536 Edison
Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821, 916-489-5860.
 
                                * * *

The Special Education Department of Peabody College of Vanderbilt
University offers programs for preparing teachers and leadership
personnel in work with visually impaired persons.  Doctoral and Master's
degrees are available, with an emphasis in visual impairment or orientation
and mobility, for those who already have vision certification.  Please
contact Dr. Randall K. Harley or Dr. Everett W. Hill for additional details,
c/o Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Box 328, Nashville, TN 37203  
                                * * *

For Sale: Practically new, Kurzweil model 7315 Personal Reader complete with
book edge scanner and hand held scanner, braille manuals, and the latest 2.1
upgrade.  Reader was used about 6 months.  Still under service contract, and
basically brand new.  Machine is in Northern California.  Original cost
$12,000.  Asking $8,000.  For information: contact James Kracht, 9901
Southwest 99 Avenue, Miami, FL 33176, work 305-375-3720, or home
305-251-6983.

                                * * *

"Eager to give as well as receive last Christmas season".  Members of the
Silicon Valley Council of the Blind organized their own collection of food
and toys for the needy.  This shows that blind and visually impaired people
not only can use people's help, but can turn around and give it also.  Margie
Donovan, coordinator of  the food and toy drive, and Judy Barnes, the
president of the chapter, said there are a lot of things blind people can do. 
At Christmas time, it is food and toys. 

                                * * *

REACHING OUT TO CHALLENGED KIDS (ROCK) matches vision-, hearing- or
physically-disabled children, ages 6-18 and Jewish, with similarly disabled
big brothers.  ROCK offers:  positive role models, enhanced self-esteem,
enduring friendships, supervised by qualified professionals.  If you are a
physically challenged adult with the time and energy for a special child or
know a child in need of a special friend, contact:  Frank Wexler, ROCK
Coordinator, Big Brothers of Los Angeles, 818-907-3873 or 213-477-8770. 