THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION National Federation of the U.S. Postage Paid Blind of Maryland Baltimore, MD 9736 Basket Ring Road Permit No. 7532 Columbia, MD 21045 Address Correction Requested THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR Al Maneki, Editor Summer/Fall 1992 The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, is a non-profit organization of blind people whose purpose is to promote equal opportunities for the blind. We provide advocacy services for the blind, special training programs for parents of blind children, job referrals and placements for the blind, public education programs, scholarships to blind students, and help the newly blinded to acquire special techniques for maintaining productive lives. Please address inquiries to: Please send donations to: NFB of Maryland NFB of Maryland 9736 Basket Ring Road 11909 Coronada Place Columbia, MD 21045 Kensington, MD 20895 phone (410)992-9608 The Braille Spectator is published quarterly for members of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland and others who share an interest in the work of this organization. The recorded edition, available on cassette, can be obtained from the editor upon request. Cassettes may be returned to the National Center for the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230. Changes of address and additions to the circulation list should be sent to the editor. Address all news items, articles and letters to the editor. Al Maneki, Editor The Braille Spectator 9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, MD 21045 Officers: Members of the Board of Directors: Sharon Maneki, President Columbia, Maryland Ken Canterbery Eileen Rivera, First Vice Essex, Maryland President Ronald Coleman Baltimore, Maryland Silver Spring, Maryland Barry Hond, Second Vice Jean Faulkner President Cumberland, Maryland Baltimore, Maryland Fred Flowers Debbie Brown, Secretary Baltimore, Maryland Rockville, Maryland Blanche Payne Judy Rasmussen, Treasurer Baltimore, Maryland Kensington, Maryland Brenda Williams, The Braille Spectator Summer/Fall 1992 The Newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland See Calendar on Page 13 WHAT PRICE LITERACY? REFLECTIONS ON THE BATTLE by Sharon Maneki On May 12, 1992, a group of jubilant Federationists traveled to Annapolis to take part in the ceremony in which Governor William Donald Schaefer signed the Literacy Rights And Education Act For Blind And Visually Impaired Students into law. Delegate Sheila Hixson and Senator Arthur Dorman, the bill's prime sponsors, also took part in the ceremony to share in our victory. This was a momentous occasion not only for the blind of Maryland, but also for the blind of the nation. Under this law, a blind or visually impaired student's need for Braille shall be presumed when developing the Individualized Education Program; the student's current and future literacy needs must be considered; Braille is not required when it has been determined that the student does not need it; requirements for the certification and recertification of vision teachers shall be strengthened; and the Maryland State Department of Education shall coordinate the availability of textbooks in non-visually accessible formats. The road to victory was a long and difficult one. The tried and true methods of the National Federation of the Blind once again proved effective. They enabled us to win the right for blind children to have the same opportunity for literacy skills that sighted children have. We in the National Federation of the Blind have the responsibility to address critical issues that affect blind persons. We are persistent. We recognize the value of collective action. The National Federation of the Blind is a pro-active organization that responds to the needs of blind persons and never evades its responsibility. Throughout the 1980's, we listened bitterly as blind adults who grew up as visually impaired children constantly express their frustration at their lack of Braille skills. We shared the anguish of parents whose pleas for instruction in Braille for their blind children were denied by vision teachers and school officials. We could not understand why Barbara and John Cheadle had to go through two years of due process procedures in order to obtain Braille instruction for their son Charles. It took the concerted efforts of parents of blind children and blind persons in the National Federation of the Blind to correct this unacceptable situation. As it turned out, much persistence would be needed to change the attitudes of educators and to win the hearts of legislators on the importance of Braille. One of the best vehicles for change is legislation. In 1986, the NFB of Maryland was the first affiliate to ask its state legislature to enact legislation to ensure Braille literacy for blind and visually impaired students. This legislation quickly became embroiled in controversy due to the opposition of the Maryland School for the Blind. Although this initial effort was unsuccessful, we continued to take every opportunity to bring the Braille issue to the attention of legislators, educators and the general public. Day by day, year by year, we made progress. By 1991, we had changed attitudes sufficiently so that consumers and educators could begin to negotiate the terms for a literacy bill. Although the consumers made several concessions to the Department of Education, the Department's support remained luke-warm, and it could never state its position on the language of the proposed bill with any degree of certainty. Regardless of the Department's position and intentions, we proceeded with our plans to have a literacy bill introduced in the 1992 session of the General Assembly. House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced with 32 House sponsors and 13 Senate sponsors. Only prior to the hearing of SB 389 before the Senate Economic and Environmental Affairs Committee did we learn of the Department of Education's proposed amendment which would eliminate one of the bill's major points. The Maryland State Department of Education argued that the "presumption of Braille" clause of our bill conflicted with the requirement of federal law to develop the Individual Education Program for each student. We argued that this clause was not a violation of federal law, that a presumption already exists, and that presumption is print. The Attorney General of Maryland issued an opinion agreeing with our position. We persisted with our efforts well beyond the committee hearings and ceased our activity only when the final victorious vote had been recorded. While individuals can sometimes cause change, it takes collective action to move mountains. Success with a Braille literacy bill in one state provides the impetus for the passage of similar bills in other states. The successful passage of literacy bills in Kansas, Texas and several other states helped us achieve our success in Maryland. The Maryland Attorney General's opinion on the presumption issue will help affiliates in other states win this argument. The advantage of a national organization to develop model legislation and to assist its state affiliates with securing the passage of legislation is extremely important. Just as we developed a model white cane law which was passed in every state during the 1950's and 1960's, we will pass Braille literacy legislation in every state in the 1990's. As we move from the law making phase to the law enforcement phase of our struggle for literacy in Maryland, we must work to develop adequate regulations to determine which students should learn Braille and to establish standards of Braille competency for vision teachers. Let us go forward with hope and encouragement based on the victories that we have achieved. We must not abandon our responsibility to ensure that blind and visually impaired children are adequately taught the skills of literacy. Parents who ask for Braille instruction for their blind children now have the force of law to back up their request. Parents should be persistent in their request for Braille instruction. Parents may be assured that they are not fighting this battle alone. Through the collective action of the National Federation of the Blind, every blind and visually impaired child will regain his right to literacy and education. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RULING The following statement was issued by the Attorney General of Maryland to Delegate Anne Scarlett Perkins, Chairman of the House Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee on March 11, 1992: You have asked for advice as to whether House Bill 859, (Senate Bill 389 is similar to House Bill 859) which establishes a presumption that proficiency in braille is essential to enable certain students to communicate effectively and efficiently, is pre-empted by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. House Bill 859 provides, in relevant part: "(b)(1) In developing the Individualized Education program for each blind or visually impaired student, it shall be presumed that proficiency in braille reading and writing is essential to enable the student to communicate effectively and efficiently. (2) A student may not be denied the opportunity for instruction in braille reading and writing solely because the student has some remaining vision. (3) This section does not require the exclusive use of braille if other reading and writing media are appropriate to the student's educational needs. The use of other reading and writing media does not preclude the use of braille or the instruction of braille." The bill goes on to provide that braille instruction is not required if all members of the individualized education program team concur "that the student's visual impairment does not affect the student's reading and writing performance." This bill was requested by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland which has expressed the view that braille instruction is not made available in many cases where it is appropriate, including cases where the child has some residual vision but not enough to permit them to read large print proficiently, and where the child has residual vision currently but is expected to experience deterioration of that vision. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. 1400, et. seq., was enacted: "to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them ... a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected ... and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities." 20 U. S. C. 1400 (c). and was designed to address a situation where one million children with disabilities were excluded from public education, and more than half of all children with disabilities did not receive appropriate educational services. 20 U. S. C. 1400 (b) (3) and (4). The federal Act requires that any state receiving federal funds under the Act must establish, review and revise as necessary an individualized education program for each child with a disability. 20 U. S. C. 1414 (a) (5). And "individualized education program" means "a written statement for each child with a disability developed in any meeting by a representative of the local education agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, the teacher, the parent or guardian of such child, and, whenever appropriate, such child, which statement shall include (A) a statement of the present levels of educational performance of such child, (B) a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives, (C) a statement of specific educational services to be provided to such child, and the extent to which such child will be able to participate in regular educational programs, (D) a statement of the needed transition services ... (E) the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such services, and (F) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved." It has been argued that a presumption that each blind and visually impaired student should receive instruction in reading and writing braille conflicts with the requirement that an educational program be designed to meet each individual student's unique needs. However, the bill does not in any way prevent the individualized education program process from taking place. Nor does it prohibit any specific type of instruction or service from being used if found appropriate. Finally, the bill does not require braille instruction if the members of the individualized education program team find that it would be inappropriate. Thus, the bill does not prevent development of individualized education programs, or limit the variety of services available for those programs. In interpreting the federal Act the Supreme Court has held that the intent was to provide a public education, not to guarantee any particular level of education, and that the law does not require that the program "maximize each child's potential commensurate with the opportunity provided other children." Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 198 (1982). In the words of the Court: "furnishing handicapped children with only such services as are available to non-handicapped children would in all probability fall short of the statutory requirement of 'free appropriate public education'; to require, on the other hand, the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential is, we think, further than Congress intended to go." Id. at 198. By providing braille instruction except when it is found to be inappropriate, House Bill 859 goes beyond what is required by the federal Act. However, it is my view that the federal Act is intended to act as a floor, not as a ceiling. Therefore, it is my view that House Bill 859 is not pre-empted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTES SMALL INCREASE TO LBPH, DEFEATS CIVIL RIGHTS FOR DISABLED: A REPORT ON THE 1992 SESSION by Sharon Maneki The 1992 session of the Maryland General Assembly was a difficult one for all concerned because of the serious economic problems facing the state. The Assembly not only had to come up with a balanced budget for the next fiscal year, but also had to redo the budget for the current year to balance it against diminished revenues. It was a very successful session for the organized blind of Maryland because of the passage of the Literacy Rights and Education Act (see lead story in this issue). We were also pleased to make modest gains on filling the staff needs for the Maryland Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (LBPH). The LBPH has needed additional staff for many years to meet the needs of its readers. Additional staff positions are especially needed to prepare for the move into the new building in 1993. In his budget, Governor Schaefer included seven new positions for LBPH. Instead, the Assembly approved two contractual positions for one year. The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland will be back at the 1993 session to explain the need for more staff positions for this valuable program. The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland joined other disability groups in working for the passage of SB 526 and HB 1248, bills proposing a constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. In order to be adopted, constitutional amendments require the approval of three fifths of the members of each house before they can be submitted to a vote in a general election. Although this measure passed the Senate, it failed in the House by only two votes. Brief mention should be made of four other bills not sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, but are of interest to Spectator readers. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation will be renamed as the Division of Rehabilitation Services on October 1, 1992, because of the passage of HB 251. The Department of Education sought this name change to reflect the inclusion of the independent living service that is supposed to be provided to disabled persons who may not have vocational goals. HB 411, a bill to clarify the definition of Special Education and add a definition of related services to the special education responsibility, died in committee. HB 923, a bill to establish a comprehensive rehabilitation fund for vocational rehabilitation services for accident victims, also died in committee. Revenues for this fund would have come from additional fines levied for traffic violations such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. HB 974, the Maryland Civil Rights Act of 1992, passed the House, but was killed by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. This bill would have provided additional protections against employment discrimination by awarding compensatory damages, allowing a complainant to bring a civil action and authorizing certain penalties to be paid to the state by companies involved in unlawful employment practices. We will hear more on these issues during the next session. I want to thank all of you for helping with our legislative effort this year. The 1992 session of the Maryland General Assembly was of great benefit to the blind of Maryland. BLIND VENDOR STILL IN JAIL by Don Morris From the Editor: Sharon Maneki and members of our merchants division received the first news of Baltimore County's impending action against Bill Ramsey on Wednesday May 13. The next five days of hectic activity resulted in a large gathering of blind persons at the meeting of the Baltimore County Council on Bill Ramsey's behalf. Here are the details as presented by Don Morris, and Larry Carson of the Baltimore Sun. The headline above might surprise you. You'll be even more surprised to learn that this is good news. Bill Ramsey, long-time vendor in the Maryland Vending Program has successfully operated the prisoner's commissary at the Baltimore County Detention Center. Bill has done an excellent job, receiving praise from county officials and from satisfied customers. That's not all. Bill has donated television sets and other such items to the benefit of prisoners' recreation areas and he has been an all around good citizen. All of this aside, County officials had decided to throw Bill out of Jail and bring in another vending company who promised to pay the county a big commission for running the place. A reporter for the Baltimore Sun newspaper learned of the plan at a county budget meeting. He reported on the proposed action, and the matter was brought to the attention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland's Merchants Division. Joe Byard, President of the NFB of Maryland's Merchants Division and George Fear, member of the Division, called radio stations and started telling Bill's story. The Maryland Committee of Blind Vendors passed a motion to come to Bill's defense, but other than the motion, the Committee took no action. Sharon Maneki learned that the county Council would be meeting on Monday, May 18, and suggested that Federationists attend to take part in the citizens' speak-out portion of the meeting. Because of the quick work done by Sharon and Joe, approximately 30 blind people (blind vendors and members of the NFB) came to the meeting. Testimony on behalf of Bill and the vending program was provided by Sharon Maneki, Jim Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs for the NFB and long time advocate of Blind Vendors, Joe Byard, George Fear and Al Hill, another Maryland blind vendor. The Council listened with interest and promised to talk to the County Executive. On Wednesday morning, two days after the Council meeting, County Executive Roger Hayden reaffirmed the County's satisfaction with Bill Ramsey. He went on to say that Baltimore County no longer has any plan to remove Bill from the business he has built or the customers he serves. Leadership roles in saving Bill's job were taken by the people mentioned. However, be aware that many more people were involved in this positive and effective action. Letters were written, phone calls were made and support was shown by the physical presence of blind people at the Council meeting. To all of these folks, CONGRATULATIONS! And, Congratulations to Bill for staying in Jail. BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL HEARS APPEAL TO KEEP BLIND VENDOR by Larry Carson Reprinted from the Baltimore Sun, Tuesday, May 19, 1992 A group of about 20 blind people went before the Baltimore County Council last night to ask that Bill Ramsey, a 52-year-old blind vendor, not be forced out of his business of operating a snack and toiletry shop in the county's detention center in Towson. The administration of County Executive Roger B. Hayden is considering a proposal to hire another contractorþwho is not blindþto run the stand in exchange for a percentage of the profits. "Where is it going to stop?" asked Alfred Hill, who is legally blind and operates a similar stand at the Social Security Administration in Woodlawn. Sharon Maneki, president of the Maryland chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, told the council that replacing Mr. Ramsey with another private contractor who is promising to pay the county part of his profits would "set a dangerous precedent, and will weaken the program for the blind." James Gashel, another federation officer, said unemployment runs around 70 percent among the blind, and that 4,000 blind vendors compose the largest single employment group among people with the disability nationally. The vendors operate in many public buildings under a 1936 federal law that created the blind vendors program. "He's not just another contract vendor," Mr. Gashel said of Mr. Ramsey. MONTGOMERY COUNTY VOTES TO KEEP SEPARATE VISION PROGRAM FOR ONE MORE YEAR From the Editor: When Kathy Tuchman attended the tour of the National Center for the Blind for parents of blind children on May 30, she told us of the plan of the Montgomery County school board to combine its educational programs for the blind and for the deaf under a single administration. From many painful experiences, we have learned that the grouping of different programs for the disabled under the same "umbrella" does not serve the best interests of blind persons. The blind will invariably constitute a minority in such aggregations, and our specialized educational requirements will often be sacrificed on the grounds of economy and replaced by more general but less meaningful programs. We immediately called on the members of our Sligo Creek Chapter to attend the Board of Education meeting on Monday, June 1, when this issue would be discussed, and to ask the Board to keep a separate program for blind and visually impaired students. Again, our actions made a difference, for Kathy Tuchman reported back to Lloyd Rasmussen that on June 10, the Montgomery County Board of Education had indeed voted to maintain a separate vision program for one more year. Here is the memorandum that Lloyd Rasmussen submitted on June 1. June 1, 1992 TO: Montgomery County Board of Education FROM: Lloyd Rasmussen, President SUBJECT: Reorganization of Vision Program The Sligo Creek Chapter, National Federation of the Blind of Maryland is a broad-based consumer organization of blind people of all ages in Montgomery and northern Prince George's Counties. As a local chapter of NFB, we have been active participants in the formulation of educational policy, through legislation and individual advocacy. During the 1992 session of the Maryland General Assembly, we passed H.B. 859, which assures that Maryland children who need instruction in Braille reading and writing will be able to get it. Many of our members have been blind since childhood, and have first-hand knowledge of how well or how poorly their schooling prepared them for the responsibilities of adulthood. It has come to my attention that the specialized programs for blind and visually impaired children are to be merged with the programs for deaf and hard of hearing children. This action has apparently been proposed without consultation with the affected staff and parents. We do not understand how combining vision and auditory programs could result in any improvement in the educational process. Hearing and vision losses are entirely different. They require totally different instructional techniques: Braille vs. American Sign Language; large print vs. lip-reading; working with readers vs. working with interpreters; difficulties in accessing written language vs. difficulties accessing oral communication. How well will blind students fare when they need more Braille instruction and materials, orientation and mobility, voice-output computers, or closed-circuit TV magnifying equipment? Will an administration which runs an award-winning auditory program be able to provide a good, well-rounded education for blind and visually impaired children at the same time? I hope that the Board of Education will not turn a deaf ear to our concerns for quality education, but have the vision to keep these programs separate, so that they can each provide the best possible preparation for the future deaf and blind citizens of Montgomery County. VENDORS' SUIT SETTLED According to Don Morris, the lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind on behalf of Maryland's blind vendors to force the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to comply with the Randolph Sheppard Act was finally settled. According to Morris, the settlement includes: (1) The Set Aside which had been paid at 9.75% of net proceeds would immediately drop to 8.5% January 1, 1992; 7% in July, 1992; 5.5% July, 1993; 4% July 1994; 3% July 1995. It will continue at a rate no higher than 3% until the year 2009. (2) Vendor Fringe Benefits. Each blind vendor will receive $2,000 per year to be applied to fringe benefits of the vendor's choosingþlife insurance, retirement, health insurance, etc. This benefit will be adjusted for inflation annually. The fringe benefit payment is also guaranteed through the year 2009. (3) Kennelly Highway Vending Income. Maryland has a very successful Highway Vending Program. It generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of royalties to the Program each year. One hundred percent of the Kennelly income will be utilized in the Maryland Vending Program. This, likewise, is guaranteed through the year 2009. (4) Withheld Set Aside. The approximately $50,000 set aside withheld by the seventeen vendors was refunded from the escrow account to all blind vendors in Maryland. Fifty percent went to the seventeen vendors who withheld and the balance was distributed to the remaining vendors. (5) Additionally, the seventeen vendors who refused to make set aside payments were "...released and discharged from any and all claims for set aside for 1987 and 1988." Furthermore, the State agrees "...not to retaliate in retribution for their withholding set aside during that period or for participating in the lawsuit." In exchange for the above settlement, Morris says, "we had to agree to drop the matter and keep straight faces while the State included a disclaimer that they did not admit any wrongdoing." Whether it is Bill Ramsey, the Montgomery County schools (see articles elsewhere in this issue) or the blind vendors, the National Federation of the Blind is ready at a moment's notice to go to work to help blind persons. ANNA CABLE STRONG AND WELL AT 99 On a sunny Saturday afternoon, May 23, a dozen members from the Central Maryland and Sligo Creek Chapters brought a birthday cake, punch, cookies, coffee, and an assortment of gifts to the Columbia home of Anna Cable to celebrate her 99th birthday, which actually occurred on June 29. The earlier date was chosen since most of the participants would be at our national convention on Anna's birthday. Everyone at the birthday party could not help but be impressed by the physical strength, mental prowess, and zest for life shown by this magnificent woman. She still lives independently in a home managed by Catholic Charities. She remembered the names of spouses and children of members of the Sligo Creek Chapter whom she had not seen in years. She regaled us with stories of her youth in Ohio. A charter member of the Sligo Creek Chapter, she recalled an earlier incident in the chapter's history, when membership had diminished and a vote was taken to dissolve the chapter; she could not vote for dissolution. The Sligo Creek Chapter has grown and prospered ever since. Anna learned to read Braille in her sixties and was an avid Braille reader for many years. She was baking cookies for Sligo Creek Chapter bake sales as late as eight years ago. She confessed that she had to give up writing letters on a typewriter last year, and is now forced to carry on her correspondence, including writing periodically to a group of fifth graders, with the assistance of a reader. At the end of an enjoyable gathering, Anna Cable unwrapped her many birthday gifts. Her response to a gift certificate for dinner for four at Morgan's, donated by the Columbia Hilton, was typical: "When do I go?" The certificate is valid for the next twelve months. There is no doubt at all that Anna and her friends will get over to Morgan's one of these days for a fine dinner. Happy birthday, Anna! Our hopes and our prayers go with you. You are an inspiration to all of us. AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS RECONSIDERED: WHEN IS IT SAFE TO CROSS? by Al Maneki The adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seems, in Maryland anyway, to have brought about a renewed interest in the installation of audible traffic signals for use by blind pedestrians. Local transportation authorities apparently believe that they are required by the ADA to install audible traffic signals whenever they are requested to do so by blind persons. Except for the objections raised by the National Federation of the Blind, very little thought is being given to the rationality, desirability or efficacy of the use of audible traffic signals. Most recently, an audible traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Cromwell Street in Montgomery County. Officials in Baltimore County are considering the installation of two audible traffic signals as a pilot study to determine their effectiveness. Earlier this year, the Maryland State Highway Administration established a task force to review its policy against recommending the installation of audible traffic signals. The Maryland State Highway Administration adopted this policy in 1988 at the insistence of the NFB of Maryland. The task force is composed of a representative from the highway administration, several blind consumers, and traffic officials from local jurisdictions. Sharon Maneki and Betsy Zaborowski, representing the NFB, are included among the blind consumers. The first and thus far only meeting of this task force was held in March. In addition to giving the arguments against audible traffic signals, Maneki and Zaborowski also questioned the process by which traffic authorities arrive at the decision to install audible traffic signals. Do the authorities use the same procedures that they use to decide when to install ordinary traffic signals? Are public comments solicited? Are alternative proposals evaluated? Or is an audible traffic signal automatically installed upon request? The assurances of objectivity given by traffic officials at this meeting were less than convincing. Bruce Magnum, traffic engineer for Montgomery County, is clearly the most knowledgeable non-blind member of the task force on the subject of audible traffic signals. At the March meeting, Magnum told the task force that his county's newest audible signal, located at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Cromwell Street, differs from the county's other audible signals in that this new signal works as a warning only when it is needed, and not as a continuously operating beacon. He explained that this audible signal is synchronized with the pedestrian activated visual "WALK" sign for crossing Massachusetts Avenue. A pedestrian activates the "WALK" sign by pressing a button mounted in the post of the traffic light. When the light turns green for Massachusetts Avenue, the visual "WALK" sign and an audible tone are simultaneously activated, and remain turned on for seven seconds. The pedestrian may begin crossing Massachusetts Avenue only during this seven-second interval, but has ample time to complete the crossing after the visual and audible "WALK" sign has terminated and before the green light has turned yellow. Magnum further explained that the audible signal was installed at the request of a blind Montgomery County resident who claimed that he needed the audible signal because he was unable to cross Massachusetts Avenue early in the morning when traffic was light but moving at excessive speed. Magnum said that when this audible signal was installed, his office familiarized the blind person with its operation. Magnum and his Montgomery County colleagues have apparently paid attention to our charges that audible traffic signals pose a disturbance to the surrounding community and can interfere with a blind pedestrian's ability to hear the flow of traffic. A seven-second audible signal synchronized with a visual "WALK" sign and which a blind pedestrian may choose not to activate is much more sensible than a continuously operating one. The central question remains: Should blind pedestrians rely on audible traffic signals? Debbie Brown, Lloyd Rasmussen, and Tom Bickford, members of our Sligo Creek Chapter, traveled to Massachusetts Avenue and Cromwell Street to test the audible signal. They agreed that this is a difficult crossing for blind pedestrians, since traffic on Massachusetts moves infrequently and at high speeds, and Cromwell forms a T-intersection so that traffic on Cromwell must turn left or right. While they sympathized with the blind person who requested this signal, they remain resolute in their belief that a blind pedestrian should not just rely on an audible signal to decide when it is safe to cross a street. The few blind persons in favor of audible traffic signals say that they are often unable to hear the traffic with sufficient clarity to know when to cross. They say that an intersection may be located at the bottom of a short steep hill, making it difficult to hear the traffic coming up the backside of that hill. They say that tall buildings at the corners of an intersection may cause frequent noisy winds, again hampering one's ability to hear traffic. They say that traffic may be moving at such an excessive speed, preventing them from hearing the movement of vehicles in sufficient time to attempt a safe crossing. No one denies that these conditions pose serious hazards to the blind pedestrian. The crucial fact remains that an audible signal can only provide information about the condition of the traffic light and not about the condition of traffic. Even with an audible signal, a blind pedestrian must listen to the flow of traffic to decide when to cross. If a blind pedestrian is unable to hear traffic without an audible signal, the audible signal will not increase the acuity of his hearing. The pretext of installing audible signals for the purpose of conducting a study is also questionable. According to traffic authorities, once a traffic signal is installed, it is never removed. What kind of study can anyone possibly conduct to test their effectiveness? Do we install an audible signal and permit blind pedestrians to use it until someone is injured or killed in an accident before we conclude that audible signals are unsafe? If blind pedestrians using the test audible signal are not involved in an accident during a specified period of time, do we falsely conclude that audible signals are effective? It is not surprising that previous "studies" of audible signals have proved inconclusive. Some persons charge the National Federation of the Blind with hypocrisy, in view of our support of talking elevators. We contend that there is a difference. The talking elevator, when properly designed and installed, provides information that is genuinely useful to blind persons and does not invade the environment as the continuously operating audible traffic signal does. It has even been suggested that the talking elevator might have commercial value if in addition to announcing the number of a floor, it would also announce the name of the establishment located on that floor. The best that can be said in defense of audible traffic signals is that if they do not create so much noise that it is impossible to hear the flow of traffic, then they will tell us when a traffic light has changed. While this information is useful, it is not absolutely necessary for safe travel, as the experience of properly trained blind persons has demonstrated for many years. While the audible signal at Massachusetts and Cromwell might be justified, the process which led to its installation is flawed. Since traffic authorities should not be expected to have the understanding of blindness that blind persons themselves have, a request for an audible signal should always be followed by a thorough discussion between traffic authorities and a cross section of the blind public. Alternative solutions should be considered. When it has been determined that an intersection is unsafe for all pedestrians, a solution beneficial to all pedestrians should be adopted, and not an audible signal which might not be helpful at all. We have not discussed the impact of the negative image of blindness which audible traffic signals can reinforce in the mind of the public. This is an issue which we will reserve for another article. AN EYE FOR ART, WOMAN BRINGS UNIQUE VISION TO GALLERY by David Halbrook From the editor: In 1990 Tina Blatter left Maryland to take training at the Colorado Center for the Blind in Denver. The following article, reprinted from the Times-Call, Longmont, CO, Sunday, January 26, 1992, proves just how much blind people can achieve when they receive proper training. Several years ago, Tina Blatter tumbled into an artistic crisis. Fretful that her future hinged on duplicating the style of other painters, Blatter punished herself to render an exact likeness of the world around her. It wasn't a pleasant chore for someone legally blind since birth and able only to discern vague outlines of her subjects. Then a photographer gave her a revelation. "This woman spent thousands of dollars on camera lenses to distort things," Blatter recalled. "She said, 'You can do it naturally, so why try to make everything perfect?' It was one of those things that really influenced me. It gave me permission to be myself and not try to make everything real realistic." To behold Blatter's workþher exhibit is on display through February at the Lafayette Art Center, 101 S. Public Roadþis to experience life in the abstract. It is to see and "feel" familiar objects and scenes jolted from normal context. It is art that commands full attention of the senses. Employing all manner of mediaþsmooth stones, rhinestone stars and half-moons, stained glass paper-mache, flower petals and pine needlesþBlatter calls it two-dimensional, or tactile, art. "I'm very aware of colors and things around me, and I try to be creative and imaginative as opposed to literal in how I see things in my art," she said. "I didn't come to the idea of tactile art until I was an adult because we learn from an early age we're not supposed to touch things. "I find children and blind people really enjoy it because most galleries and museums forbid us to feel things. A blind friend recently went to a museum and came back saying, 'Wow, I counted 18 glass cases.'" Now uniquely her own, Blatter's style evolved, surprisingly, from a study of Henri Matisse. "Matisse was going blind in the late stages of his career," she said. "He found it easier to cut pieces of paper to create his art. That gave me the idea of cutting petals out of foil and ribbon to help me see colors and shapes. I later learned that many of the early impressionists, like Monet, had sight impairments. They just painted what they saw." A new resident of Colorado, Blatter divides her time between creating and marketing her art and teaching the county's blind at Boulder's Center for People with Disabilities. It is a good mix, she said, for supporting oneself full-time as an artist in a new setting takes patienceþand energy. Often she must load herself and her art onto a bus to market it at galleries across the Front Range. "I spent a lot of time educating gallery owners about blindness. Only later can we meet on the common ground of art," she said. "Certainly I'd like to someday be viewed as an artist first. Then maybe the headlines won't always say 'Blind Artist.'" 1991-92 BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS CONTEST WINNERS We salute the students from Maryland who entered the Braille Readers Are Leaders Contest for 1991-92. Your accomplishments are noteworthy. You are engaged in an educational experience that will serve you well throughout your lives. Here are the contest participants and their accomplishments: Student Grade Pages Read National Recognition Jennifer Baker 9 5416 3rd Place, Grades 9-12 Gina Bunting 5 1264 3rd place, Print to Braille Tiffany Green 5 1321 Annette Harvey 6 175 Most Improved, Print to Braille Paul Jackson 6 Most Improved, Grades 5-8 Jennifer Karns 5 541 Frank Milner 10 699 Amjad Shaker 7 28 Christina Shorten 6 897 Beth Smaligo Kindergarten 145 See the next issue of Future Reflections for details about the 1992-93 Braille Readers Are Leaders Contest. SPECKS RETIRES: Cherry King (Lanham), an active member of the Sligo Creek Chapter for the past 20 years, retired from the Prince George's County School District on March 13. She worked in that district for 31 years. She was the librarian at the Andrew Jackson Middle School in Suitland for the past 20 years, since the school first opened its doors. This fall, the Andrew Jackson Middle School's library will be named in her honor. Congratulations, Cherry! ALSO 90: To the best of our knowledge, there are two nonagenarians among our members. Kent Keene (Baltimore), a lifetime member, celebrated his 90th birthday on March 21. He continues to lead an active life and communicates regularly with relatives in Virginia. Congratulations, Kent! You have our prayers and our best wishes. WEDDING BELLS: In April, wedding bells rang in Baltimore for Miss Myrick and for Miss Finneyfrock. Susan Myrick, Dr. Jernigan's secretary for many years, was married to Rob Boeshore....Patricia Finneyfrock, who also works at the National Center for the Blind, was married to Leonard Swigger. Congratulations and best wishes to the newlyweds. NEW BABIES: Mark Eugene Plantz, Jr. was born to Mark and Inger Plantz (Silver Spring) on April 5 at 12:51 PM. He weighed six pounds, eleven ounces, and measured 22 inches....Maria Rivera Forman was born on January 1, 1992. Since her parents, Eileen Rivera and Dr. Jeff Forman, are active federationists, it is no surprise that Maria is a veteran, too. Maria has already attended several chapter meetings, committee meetings, was part of the organizing team that started our Puerto Rico affiliate and attended her first national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina....Congratulations parents and babies. KUDOS: Kay Monville (Columbia) graduated from Howard County Community College with her Associates Degree in General Studies....Dr. Betsy Zaborowski (Baltimore) was recently appointed to the Commission on Women for Baltimore City....Loretta White (Pasadena) was recently appointed to the Anne Arundel County Special Education Advisory Council....Mildred Rivera moved to Baltimore last December to accept a position with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....Kathy Burnside moved to Minneapolis in January to accept a position with BLIND, Inc....Tom Bickford (Kensington) recently completed 25 years of federal service as an employee of the Library of Congress. FATHER AND SON: Ken Canterbury, treasurer of our Baltimore County Chapter, displayed a piece of creative fundraising for the state affiliate by conducting a hot dog eating contest near the Dundalk Post Office on Tuesday, June 16. The winners were Darren Stewart and Brenda Fleishell of Dundalk. Ken's son, Adam, also displayed initiative by persuading his third-grade teacher to invite Sharon Maneki to appear as a guest speaker before his class. As it turned out, Sharon was invited to address all three of the third-grade classes at Red House Run Elementary School on Tuesday, May 26. Thank you Ken and Adam for jobs well done. CALENDAR July 25, 1992 NFB of Maryland Board of Directors meeting in Columbia, 10 AM, call (410)992- 9608 for details. Sept. 18-20 26th annual state convention, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Thurs., October 15 National White Cane Safety Day. October 1 Deadline for articles for next issue of the Braille Spectator. Sat., November 7 NFB of Maryland Board of Directors meeting. Time and place to be announced. CHAPTERS AND DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND Baltimore County Chapter Donald Combs, president (410)323-8572 Monthly meetings second Thursday Greater Baltimore Chapter Eileen Rivera, president (410)433-5176 Monthly meetings third Saturday Central Maryland Chapter Brenda Mueller, president (301)551-7057 Monthly meetings third Tuesday Greater Cumberland Chapter Ron Burns, president (301)759-4673 Monthly meetings first Tuesday Frederick County Chapter Gerald Schultz, president (301)662-6803 Monthly meetings fourth Tuesday Sligo Creek Chapter Lloyd Rasmussen, president (301)946-8345 Monthly meetings second Saturday Mountain City Chapter Jean Faulkner, president (301)729-8942 Monthly meetings third Thursday Southern Maryland Chapter Ken Silberman, president (301)552-2839 Monthly meetings fourth Saturday Parents of Blind Children Division Loretta White, president (410)360-5108 Merchants' Division Joe Byard, president (410)284-1768 Diabetics Support Network Donna Goodman, chairman (410)730-9430 Monthly meetings fourth Tuesday NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL CONVENTION GAITHERSBURG MARRIOTT 620 Lakeforest Boulevard Gaithersburg, Maryland Friday, September 18þSunday, September 20, 1992 LUXURIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS Indoor/outdoor pool, whirlpool, saunas, exercise room. Hazelton's family restaurant, Tarragon's for gourmet cuisine, cozy retreat for cocktails, snacks and quiet conversation at Hazelton's Tavern, high-energy entertainment and dancing at Raffles II. GREAT LOCATION Next to Lakeforest Mall. ATTRACTIVE ROOM RATES $55.00-$66.00 per night per room, tax included. RESERVE YOUR ROOM NOW Send your completed reservation form and full payment for your room to Shirley Morris by August 28, 1992. Do not call the hotel for room reservations. FOR MORE INFORMATION Call Sharon Maneki, President, NFB of Maryland, (410)992-9608. CONVENTION PREVIEW National Representative To be announced. Peer Support: The Critical Bridge in the Adjustment to Vision Loss and Blindness Conducted by Dr. Betsy Zaborowski, Clinical Psychologist; President, Human Services Division, National Federation of the Blind. A seminar for the newly blind and their families, parents of blind children, diabetics, experienced blind persons who want to develop strategies to reach out to the newly blind, and interested professionals. Discuss the issues! Learn and practice the alternative techniquesþ Braille, mobility, and more! 12:30 PMþ5:00 PM Friday Get Acquainted Party Hosted by the Sligo Creek Chapter Entertainment, cash bar, free snacks. NFB of Maryland Board of Directors Meeting 5:00 PMþ6:00 PM Friday NFB of Maryland Resolutions Committee Meeting 8:00 PM Friday Saturday Evening Banquet Awards, scholarships, banquet address, auction. General Sessions on Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. Door Prizes given throughout the General Sessions and the Banquet. Special events for blind vendors and parents of blind children. Adjourn at noon, Sunday.