NAC IN THE DEATH THROES: THE PASSING OF AN ERA An Address Delivered by Kenneth Jernigan Executive Director, National Federation of the Blind At the Annual Convention New Orleans, Louisiana, July 4, 1991 When the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) came into being over a quarter of a century ago, it was clear from the circumstances of its creation, the nature of its operation, and the behavior of the people who were running it, that we were either going to have to reform it or kill it. It was also equally clear that reform was extremely unlikely. I remember those days very vividly. In 1965 Dr. tenBroek and I attended a national meeting of home teachers in Denver, and a representative of the committee which was forming NAC was chairing the session. The teachers wanted to vote on an issue affecting them and were bluntly told no. The NAC representative said that he would be glad to report their views but that voting was not part of the process. Later in 1965 Dr. tenBroek and I attended a so-called consensus meeting in New York and saw closed meetings, heads of agencies for the blind turned away at the door, and such other arbitrary behavior that the word "consensus" was a bad joke. Nevertheless, in 1966 when I was asked to serve on the newly established NAC board, Dr. tenBroek and I decided that I should do it, if for nothing else to show that we were willing to go beyond the requirements of reason to try to find harmony and understanding. The period from then to now is well-known history. From the very beginning NAC excluded the representatives of the blind from its meetings even though our programs and our lives were being discussed. We invited NAC's president to our 1971 convention at Houston--and he came, the very personification of arrogance and insensitivity. Nevertheless, we treated him with courtesy and listened respectfully to what he had to say. When, later that year, we asked that only two representatives of the blind be permitted to attend a NAC board meeting as silent observers with a pledge to say not a single word but just to listen, our request was rejected with ridicule and scorn. Beyond that, when I tried (in what had been an agreement of reciprocity for the presentation made by NAC's president at Houston) to make a statement to the NAC board, I was publicly attacked and abused, as was the Federation as an organization. At this stage I withdrew from the NAC board, and a new phase of our contact with the organization began. NAC's highpoint probably occurred in the early 1970s. It was not only receiving money from the American Foundation for the Blind but also from the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration--but by mid-decade its federal funding had been withdrawn. In the early seventies it claimed that it would soon have most of the more than five hundred eligible agencies for the blind in the country as accredited members, but ten years later the momentum was gone. In the 1980s NAC was fighting a defensive action, and by 1990 it was losing agencies. Meanwhile throughout the seventies and eighties the blind of the nation settled down for the long war. Wherever NAC went, we went. We picketed, presented ourselves at NAC board meetings to demand admittance, and relentlessly exposed the sham and shoddiness of NAC's accreditation procedures and standards. From the picket lines and demonstrations came spontaneous songs about NAC. There was a confrontation at NAC headquarters in New York in 1973 with a coffin, the hanging of NAC in effigy, a symbolic burial, and appropriate news coverage. Many of us in this audience were there. We not only carried the message to NAC but also to the public. With notable exceptions the NAC-accredited agencies (far from being models of excellence) had the reputation, as they still do, of being the worst in the nation. There were the scandals at the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, the Cleveland Society for the Blind, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, the Alabama School for the Deaf and the Blind, and others. In the late 1980s the American Foundation for the Blind, which had always provided around fifty percent of NAC's budget, told NAC that it must either reform or be cut off at the pockets. In a scramble for survival NAC (one of whose long-time supporters, Grant Mack, was a member of the board of National Industries for the Blind) got that organization to pledge funds, but the show was coming to an end. Late last year, in an act of desperation, NAC apparently decided that if it couldn't get agencies for the blind to accredit voluntarily, it would force them to do it. It hired a lobbyist and tried to get Congress, when reauthorizing the federal Rehabilitation Act, to require that an agency must be NAC-accredited in order to receive federal funding. This was finally too much. The sheltered shops rebelled; the federal/state rehabilitation programs rebelled; and the blind had already been rebelling. The end was clearly in sight. In desperation Grant Mack (the chairman of NAC's Committee on the Advancement of Accreditation) started to go state by state (in what one official of the American Foundation for the Blind wryly called "the Grant Mack road show") to drum up support. But it was too late. NAC backed away from its attempt to tie the receipt of federal funds to accreditation. It didn't matter. What had been only a sham and a charade now became a trashy melodrama. In December of last year at a Grant Mack road show in Chicago, Mack tore a microphone from the hands of Steve Hastalis, a reporter for the Braille Monitor, and threw it to the floor, breaking it to pieces. When Mack was taken by the police in a paddy wagon for questioning, he tried to bluff it out. Then came the most bizarre behavior of all. As reported in the May, 1991, Braille Monitor, Mack was summoned to appear in the Chicago courts on the criminal charge of battery. Mack didn't show but was represented by a lawyer, George Weaver. Ever since, the story has circulated that Mack says that the charges were dropped. This flies in the face of the warrant which was issued by the judge on February 11, 1991, for Grant Mack's arrest and which is still outstanding. When contradictory claims are made, it is not always possible to be sure who is telling the truth; but when the truth can be determined beyond doubt, it is helpful in judging past and future assertions. Here is a letter from Grant Mack's lawyer printed in the May-June, 1991, Braille Forum as fact. It appears in an article entitled "Chicago Charges Against Grant Mack Gone With the Wind." This is a word-for-word quote of the lawyer's letter: Re: Proceedings in the Circuit Court of Cook County Dear Grant: As I have previously advised you I appeared in court on your behalf on January 3 and filed our motion to quash the summons that had not been personally served upon you. The court granted my motion to quash the summons and further gave the state until February 11, 1991 to personally serve you with the summons. The Court further ordered that if personal service was not so obtained, that the action would be dismissed without the necessity of our appearing in Court. Since we understand that you have not been personally served, there should be no further proceedings relative to this matter. I might further add that it is my opinion that not only are the allegations of the complainant ludicrous from a factual standpoint, even if accepted as being true, that does not set forth legal grounds for charging you with any criminal offense. It has been my pleasure assisting you in this matter. Very Truly Yours, George Weaver, Esq. Peggy Pinder, who is an attorney and also Second Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind, was present in the court on both January 3, 1991, and February 11, 1991. She tells me that the court did not grant Mr. Weaver's motion to quash the summons; that the judge did not say he would dismiss the action if Mr. Mack or his lawyer did not appear on February 11; that Mr. Weaver, who had tried to "smart off" to the judge, said he would not come back on February 11 and indeed did not do so; and that the judge, who seemed less than pleased, issued a warrant for Mack's arrest, which warrant is still outstanding. What is the truth? Are we to believe a letter from an unknown lawyer in Chicago, or are we to believe Peggy Pinder and an official document of the court? Here is the exact language of the arrest warrant, a warrant which is still in effect: In The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois People of the State of Illinois vs. Mack Case No. 90-122467 Arrest Warrant People of the State of Illinois to all peace officers in the state--Greetings: We command you to arrest Grant Mack (Defendant) for the offense of Chapter 38, Section 123 (Battery). Stated in a charge now pending before this court and that you bring him before the Circuit Court of Cook County at Branch 134, 155 West 51st Street, or, if I am absent or unable to act, the nearest or most accessible court in Cook County or, if this warrant is executed in a county other than Cook, before the nearest or most accessible judge in the county where the arrest is made. Issued in Cook County February 11, 1991 Bail Fixed at $3,000 Information and Description of Defendant Name: Grant Mack; Alias: ---; Residence: 2224 Panorama Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124; Sex: Male; Race: White; Weight: 170; Height: 5 feet, 7 inches; Age: 58. So reads the arrest warrant--and without belaboring the matter further, let me just say that if Mr. Mack will let us know when he plans next to be in Illinois, we will be glad to inform the judge, who will probably be happy to give him a little time-- unless, of course, Mack wishes to spring for the $3,000 bail which has been set. NAC's luck seems to have run out in 1991. On February 21 National Industries for the Blind officially declared that it would stop further funding of NAC after June of this year. Shortly thereafter it was learned that the American Foundation for the Blind had made the same decision. On April 7 NAC's board met in what must have been the most distasteful gathering it had ever held. First an attempt was made to reduce costs and streamline NAC's operation. The motion lost by a vote of ten to four. Then a motion was made "that the board of directors recommend to the membership... that NAC dissolve no later than May 31, 1991...." This motion carried by a vote of twelve to two. A memorandum to NAC-accredited agencies and members from Joseph E. Champagne dated April 12, 1991, said in part: "On April 7, 1991 the board of directors of the National Accreditation Council met to discuss the future of NAC given the financial exigencies that have developed as a result of the decision of the National Industries for the Blind to discontinue financial support beyond June 30, 1991. Similar action is expected from the American Foundation for the Blind since the two support programs were linked. Therefore NAC does not have the financial resources to conduct business as usual beyond June 30, 1991. As a result, and after many hours of deliberation, the NAC board adopted a resolution to recommend to the membership that NAC be dissolved as of May 31, 1991, its financial obligations met to the extent feasible, and that every attempt be made to transfer its assets and mission to another entity or coalition of entities so that the valued and essential process of accreditation can be resumed but under new and more financially stable auspices." After explaining that the board did not have the legal power to dissolve NAC, a decision which could only be made by the membership, Champagne went on to say: "I am calling a special meeting of the membership for Sunday, May 5, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to be held at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Hotel at the La Guardia Airport in New York. I anticipate the meeting to be over by 1:00 p.m.... I urge each of you to attend or vote by proxy." A proxy was included with the Champagne memo, but in usual NAC fashion it had been incorrectly drawn. So a new proxy had to be sent. Also in traditional NAC style the May 5 meeting was held in NAC's business-as-usual, high-handed manner. Melody Lindsey is a member of the board of directors of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, a NAC-accredited agency, and Seville Allen is the chairperson of the board of the Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped, also a NAC-accredited agency. Both Ms. Allen and Ms. Lindsey went to New York on May 5 to attend the NAC board meeting. They were told that they would not be permitted to come into the meeting unless they signed a statement that they were visitors. When they objected on the grounds that they were board members of NAC-accredited agencies, they were treated with rudeness and ordered to sit in the back of the room. As best they could determine, only ten people were present who voted. Voting was done by show of hands, and Seville Allen and Melody Lindsey, being blind, could not tell who voted for or against dissolving NAC. Joseph Champagne, who chaired the meeting, said that (including the proxies) fifty-three votes were cast in favor of continuing NAC and forty-eight votes were cast in favor of dissolving NAC. The proxies were not publicly counted, nor were Seville Allen or Melody Lindsey permitted to examine them even though they asked to do so. There were four so- called "visitors" in the back of the room, including the two already mentioned. In view of NAC's often repeated claims of professionalism and its constant self-praise about the quality of its services to the blind and its ethics, it is instructive to examine Seville Allen's sworn statement concerning the tone and conduct of the May 5 meeting. Her affidavit says in part: The meeting began at approximately 9:00 a.m., and the spokesperson identified himself as Joe Champagne, the NAC board chairman. He stated that the meeting was for one purpose and one purpose only and that was to vote whether or not to dissolve the NAC corporation.... He then called for the vote of the people in the room by a showing of hands and counted those for and against dissolving NAC. There was mumbling going on in the front of the room, and I could not hear what they said. Then the vote was announced, and Joe Champagne said there were fifty-three agencies against dissolving NAC and forty-eight for. I did not see any proxies, and I did not see them counted. I observed that ten people voted in the room. He announced that the agency was not dissolved, and the meeting was immediately adjourned. Then he announced the executive committee would meet later in the morning. Everyone left the room with the exception of the four of us sitting in the designated visitor's space. Briefcases were left in the front of the room, giving the impression that the executive committee meeting would be held in that room. Dennis Hartenstine walked over to where the four of us were sitting and stated that the executive committee meeting would start in approximately five minutes and that the four of us were to leave the room. Two people left, and Melody Lindsey and I remained in our seats. Dennis walked toward us and asked me if I was leaving. I said that I was not, that I was going to stay and observe the meeting since I was the chairman of the board of an accredited agency. He insisted that we had to leave. I remained in my chair. He said that they had opened the membership meeting, which they had not planned to do, but the executive committee was closed to all but the executive committee. I stated that we were interested persons from boards of accredited agencies and that we planned to stay and observe the proceedings of the executive committee meeting. Melody Lindsey said that she was from the board of an accredited agency and that she was therefore interested in seeing what NAC planned to do. Dennis asked me if I intended to make an issue of attending. I said that I did not plan to make an issue; I planned to sit quietly in my chair and observe. He said that corporate members are not invited to the executive committee meeting, and I said that they could be.... He stated that he would not carry on a conversation with me. I did not respond to that. He angrily stated that since I would not listen to him, he would have the hotel security come in and have a conversation with me and perhaps I would listen to the hotel security. I did not respond. I remained in my seat, and he left the room, yelling and closing the door. Melody Lindsey and I remained in the room an additional forty minutes. No one from hotel security appeared. However, during the forty minutes a woman entered, came to the back of the room next to where I was sitting, told me that my cane was lying on the floor, picked it up, and handed it to me. I said, "thank you." The woman left. After she left, someone else came in, walked around the front of the room, then left. I walked around and checked, and the briefcases were gone. Several times someone opened the doors and closed them again. After the forty-minute wait we left the meeting room, and as we walked toward the elevator, we observed that the NAC meeting was being held in another meeting room. Apparently NAC officials had slipped into the meeting room, quietly retrieved briefcases and other belongings, and adjourned to other quarters--all without saying a word to us. This deliberate deception practiced against blind individuals who were not in a position to observe the clandestine behavior is noteworthy from an agency which purports to set standards to govern agencies for the blind. This behavior is an example of the reason that Melody Lindsey and I were concerned over the planned future actions of NAC. That is the sworn statement of Seville Allen, and that is also the shabby behavior of the organization which claims to set standards and act as a role model for ethical behavior in the blindness field. It is clear that there were deep divisions in the NAC board- -for the president, Joseph Champagne, and the vice president, Evelyn Ullman, resigned at the closed executive committee meeting from which Seville Allen and Melody Lindsey were excluded. It is also obvious who the two people were who voted at the April 7, 1991, NAC board meeting to continue to fight on instead of dissolving NAC, and who now control what is left of NAC. They can be none other than Dr. N. Edd Miller (a total outsider, who is probably well-intentioned but knows nothing whatever about blindness and the problems in the blindness field) and Dr. Richard Welch (a staunch advocate of custodialism, who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is no friend of independent blind persons, especially those who have the impertinence to organize and speak for themselves). All of this is shown in a memorandum sent on April 16, 1991, from Dr. Welch to the NAC agencies and members. In that document he said in part: "As a member of the board, I voted against this resolution [the April 7 resolution to dissolve NAC] because I think there is a way to keep accreditation by NAC available and because I think we absolutely need to maintain a specialized accreditation process in our field. I am sharing my thinking with you in the hope that you might be persuaded to not dissolve the National Accreditation Council and the important and effective service it provides. I am joined in this appeal by Dr. N. Edd Miller, an experienced accreditation professional from outside our field who has served in recent years as the chairman of NAC's Commission on Accreditation." In his April 16 memo Dr. Welch went on to explain what he thought could be done to keep NAC alive--and beyond that, make it more to his liking. It could, in effect, flee from the city, where it had lost the battle, and retreat into the hills to carry on long-term guerilla warfare and continue to cause divisiveness in the blindness field. The staff could be reduced to a skeletal remainder, and a small group of "old boy," hand-picked volunteers could carry on the bitterness, remember nonexistent pretended glory, and hope for a miracle that would bring better days--in short, live in a world of lost dreams and might-have-beens. It is not difficult to read through the niceties of phraseology in the Welch memo. Here is what he says: In my view, the way for NAC to survive is for it to streamline its accreditation process and its organizational structure to the point where it can operate within the level of revenues that can be generated by dues alone. If this can be done, NAC would be removed from the situation in which it is dependent on other organizations and other factors for its funding, factors which have no direct relevance to accreditation. For this to work, a dues increase of ten to twenty percent, depending on the size of the agency's budget, would be necessary. As the process is streamlined, the cost to the accredited agencies of the self-study and the on-site review visit would be reduced, softening the impact of increased dues. Similarly, the review and decision-making process by the Commission on Accreditation could also be reduced and made more affordable. The Commission on Accreditation might also take on the policy-making function for the organization, making a large board unnecessary. Such a streamlined process [Dr. Welch continued] would require less staff to manage it. One accreditation professional, one secretary, and a part-time bookkeeper would be all that would be necessary.... The growing cadre of experienced and enthusiastic volunteers who have been doing on-site reviews for NAC for many years could manage staffless on-site review teams under most circumstances, could work with new agencies applying for accreditation, and could participate in other special projects such as promoting programmatic accreditation. If its current lease could be re-negotiated, NAC's office could move out of New York.... With a reduced staff, less expensive space could be rented elsewhere, perhaps in-kind services could be provided in the form of donated space in another organization. This is the Welch memo, and it is not hard to read between the lines. NAC has always operated with as much secrecy as possible. Its real landlord is not the owner of the New York building in which it occupies space but another tenant. It subleases from the New York New Jersey Trail Conference, and that organization has expressed considerable concern that NAC might simply pack up and skip town regardless of the thousands of dollars remaining on its lease. Officials of the Trail Conference indicated no knowledge of some of NAC's perturbations and showed a good deal of unease at what might await them. Officials of the Trail Conference said that Dennis Hartenstine, who left NAC employment at the end of May, indicated that he thought the rest of the NAC board (besides Miller and Welch, of course) would probably resign during the summer and that, as he put it, an "associated committee of supporters" would be stepping in as the new board at a meeting in late July or early August. A Trail Conference official also said that Hartenstine indicated that NAC had been offered a small amount of space at no cost in Washington, D.C., increasing the jumpiness of the Trail Conference official. Be this as it may, Dr. Miller (or, more probably, the real boss, Dr. Welch, speaking in the name of Dr. Miller) lost no time in contacting NAC's members, a number of whom are said to be requesting a return of all or part of the money they have paid to NAC for current dues. Under date of May 6, 1991, Miller (or Welch speaking in the name of Miller) sent a memo to the shrinking NAC flock to give courage and boost morale. Miller outlined his version (or, perhaps more realistically, Dr. Welch's version) of what had occurred at the meeting the day before. He then concluded by saying: "I am pleased to be able to communicate this information to you. The threatened loss of NAC's specialized accreditation process has created the opportunity for the development of an accreditation program that will efficiently and effectively meet the needs and requests of the accredited members, sponsors, volunteers, and consumers of services for persons who are blind and visually impaired. I look forward to being a part of this worthwhile effort, and working with all of you as we achieve our goals." Meanwhile (just a day later) on May 7, 1991, the Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility of the federal Department of Education was scheduled to consider NAC's petition to continue to be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an accrediting agency, but in view of its chaotic state and desperate situation NAC had petitioned the Committee to postpone consideration of its status until a later time. I appeared before the Committee on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind to urge that NAC not be allowed to avoid the inevitable by hiding behind delay--but NAC used the dodge of not showing up at all, so consideration of its status was put over until the fall meeting. However, I was permitted to talk briefly with the Committee and to distribute literature to them, which in the circumstances I believe they will read. I was also assured that, regardless of the excuse, NAC would not be able to get a delay beyond the fall meeting of the Committee. At that time NAC must either stand and deliver or face the consequences-- and you may rest assured that we will be present to press our case. In the time I was allowed to speak I pointed out to the Committee that NAC does not now meet, and probably never has met, the requirements of the Department of Education to be recognized as an accrediting agency. The criteria for recognition include nine major points, and NAC fails to meet the standards in at least three respects: Accreditation is not required for programs or students to receive federal assistance in the blindness field; NAC is not generally accepted in the blindness field; and NAC does not have the resources to carry out its activities. Assuming NAC's ghost is still alive in the fall, we will see how it defends itself before the Committee. In considering NAC's nonperformance and the controversy surrounding it during the past year, you have to wonder why any self-respecting agency doing work with the blind would be willing to continue to have its name associated with NAC, and I doubt that many of them will--at least, not for much longer. For a quarter of a century NAC and its supporters have bullied and threatened, tried to force agencies to join them by implying that those who would not would be branded as substandard, used accreditation as a shield to protect the poorest agencies in the field, and sought to build an empire of custody and control--but they have failed, utterly failed. They are bankrupt, not only financially but also morally and spiritually. They are a blight upon the field of work with the blind, the largest remaining controversial issue to cause strife and dissension. As we approach the beginning of the twenty-first century, the blind of this country confidently look forward to a day at hand when we can truly have first-class citizenship and real equality in society, just like the rest--when we can have a good- paying job and the joys of a home and a family of our own, just like the rest--when we can hold our heads high in self-respect and the respect of others, just like the rest--when we can earn our way and pay our dues and live our freedom, just like the rest--when we can wake in the morning without fear or poverty, just like the rest--when we can hope and believe and dream, just like the rest--and especially when whatever we have is ours as a matter of right, whether it be great or small, not a dole portioned out to us by agencies like NAC, who mislead the public, live at our expense, and act as if they are our superiors, which they are certainly not. We look forward to that day, and we intend to have it because we have found the power of collective action. We have found, we have created, we have lived the National Federation of the Blind. And one of the things we absolutely will put behind us forever is the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped. No more NAC. My brothers and my sisters, our future is bright with promise. Let us go with joy to meet it.