Braille Monitor
Vol. 53, No. 7   July 2010
                           Daniel B. Frye, Editor

            Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by

                    The National Federation of the Blind
                           Marc Maurer, President

                               National Office
                   200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
                          Baltimore, Maryland 21230
                          telephone: (410) 659-9314
                         email address: nfb@nfb.org
                     Website address: http://www.nfb.org
                      NFBnet.org: http://www.nfbnet.org
                  NFB-NEWSLINE information: (866) 504-7300



                 Letters to the president, address changes,
            subscription requests, and orders for NFB literature
                   should be sent to the National Office.
         Articles for the Monitor and letters to the editor may also
     be sent to the National Office or may be emailed to dfrye@nfb.org.




Monitor subscriptions cost the  Federation  about  twenty-five  dollars  per
year. Members are invited,  and  nonmembers  are  requested,  to  cover  the
subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to  National  Federation
of the Blind and sent to:


      National Federation of the Blind
      200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
      Baltimore, Maryland 21230-4998


         THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
       SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES


ISSN 0006-8829



Vol. 53, No. 7                                           July 2010

      Contents

Something Amiss in Michigan
Part II
by Daniel B. Frye

Achieving the Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act
in the Digital Age:
Current Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities
by Daniel F. Goldstein

Carmakers Agree to Make Electric Cars Noisier
by Peter Valdes-Depena

Comments on the Draft National Educational Technology Plan 2010

Special Report:
A Study on the Accuracy of Dosing with Insulin Pens by Blind and Sighted
People
by Ann S. Williams

More Absurd Research to Bother the Blind

San Francisco Organization Makes More Than One Million Books
Available Online to Blind, Dyslexic
by Brooke Donald

Fall Risk
by Hannah Lindner

Featured Book in the Jacobus tenBroek Library
by Ed Morman

Ask Miss Whozit

NFB/Cardtronics Settlement

Recipes

Monitor Miniatures
      NFB President Marc Maurer was awarded the honorary Doctorate of Laws
from the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, May 16, 2010. He is pictured
here after receiving his award from Professor Walter Nicgorski. We
congratulate our President on another appropriate recognition of his
service to the blind of America and his accumulated expertise in the
blindness civil rights arena.
                        [PHOTO CAPTION: Larry Posont]
                         Something Amiss in Michigan
                                   Part II
                              by Daniel B. Frye
                                 **********
      From the Editor: In this second part of our investigative story on
the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB), we offer a brief update on
events surrounding the Christine Boone issue featured in last month's
report. We will also examine allegations of agency noncompliance with
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act guidelines in
the installation of Braille signs, use of inaccessible state computer
systems, and failure to provide clients written materials in their
preferred accessible format in a timely manner. Additionally we will review
assertions that agency director, Pat Cannon, inappropriately exercises
influence over the composition and operation of the agency's governing
board. We will alert readers to questionable business and fiscal practices
at the Commission and survey some of the Business Enterprise Program (BEP)
challenges faced by blind vendors in Michigan. This is what we know:
                                 **********
                   An Update on the Christine Boone Issue
                                 **********
      Despite the fact that Christine Boone's appeal of her termination as
director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center (MCBTC)
is pending before the state's Civil Service Commission, with a first pre-
arbitration and mediation date scheduled for July 9, 2010, Commission
officials recently announced that Sherri Heibeck, a twenty-four-year
employee of the MCB and most recently administrative services manager for
the agency, would assume this role as of Monday, June 14. This appointment
has attracted criticism from the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan since Heibeck's education and experience have been limited
exclusively to matters of organizational business management and
information technology. A June 12, 2010, article in the Kalamazoo Gazette
highlights her limited background in the actual substance of blindness
rehabilitation programming. The Monitor has also learned that Heibeck will
continue to be based out of MCB headquarters in Lansing instead of being
officially based in Kalamazoo, where the MCBTC is located. Heibeck's
commuting time, which will be authorized as part of her work day, will have
her at the center only about five hours a day, a significant absence for a
leader who must be present to set the proper tone and expectation for
students being trained to adjust to blindness. We can only infer that MCB
management is confident in the decision to terminate Boone in view of its
announcement that this vacancy has been filled. We are left to wonder if
Heibeck's appointment can represent a positive development for the state's
only adult rehabilitation training center for blind people when she does
not possess any real history in working directly with blind consumers.
                                 **********
              The ADA and Rehabilitation Act Compliance Issues
                                 **********
      Some agency observers accuse Cannon and MCB management of lax
adherence to the letter as well as the spirit of the ADA and Rehabilitation
Act in not installing Braille signs throughout MCB facilities, adopting
inaccessible computer systems limiting the ability of blind employees to
function independently, and failure to provide timely access to public
documents and individual consumer records in accessible formats. Each of
these claims appears to have some merit. These lapses disadvantage blind
Michigan residents, and they have been perpetrated by the ADA coordinator
for the executive branch of state government, Pat Cannon.
      Former MCBTC Director Christine Boone observed, "When I arrived, I
learned that the center had recently undergone some remodeling in the name
of ADA compliance, but whoever did it sold the state a bill of goods. Many
aspects of the remodel were noncompliant. I found only homemade signage; I
found no professionally manufactured accessible signage. Additionally, the
reception area was not accessible to wheelchair users. Yet Pat Cannon sat
on the governor's cabinet as the ADA coordinator for the state of
Michigan." Boone reports that during her tenure these deficiencies at the
MCBTC were remedied. We observed adequate signs during our visit, and the
entryway to the center, while small, appears to be wheelchair accessible,
if not completely compliant.
      In addition to the ADA issues identified at the MCBTC, multiple
complaints have been lodged with various state and federal authorities
about the absence of ADA-compliant Braille and raised-letter signs in the
Victor Building, the MCB headquarters in Lansing. Paul Joseph Harcz has
registered most of these complaints, and he seems to possess a technical
understanding of the standards that ADA regulations require. We have been
unable to ascertain if any of Harcz's complaints or grievances have been
formally responded to or adjudicated. While we found some doors in the
Victor Building labeled, Harcz accurately observes that not all appropriate
signs have been installed at the MCB headquarters. Since acquiring ADA-
compliant signage is now a fairly standard practice, we are at a loss why
the MCB would not already be a model of excellence in this regard decades
after such regulations have been adopted.
      When invited to comment on the signage issue, Cannon said that he had
"just heard of a signage complaint this morning." He noted, "When you look
at accessibility, signage is often most overlooked." He recalled a visit to
a hotel in the shadow of the nation's Capitol, and he was appalled that
inaccessible signs could exist at the end of the twentieth century. It
seems likely that, if signage issues are brought to Cannon's attention, he
will take measures to address this issue.
      Harcz and several others have also complained about not receiving
materials for public meetings and client records in accessible formats. At
this writing we don't know how these complaints have been resolved. We were
given access to Braille and electronic materials at the March 2010 meetings
we attended.
      Reports surfaced during our investigation that the MCB has several
inaccessible computer systems that blind agency staff must use to do their
jobs. Specifically, Boone reported that the fiscal software was not
entirely accessible to blind employees. She noted that a blind intern
working at the MCBTC with the center's fiscal specialist was unable to work
independently using this system. Other blind staff reported that the agency
systems for personnel management and timekeeping were also inaccessible.
      Cannon responded to the allegations about the compromised intern and
the fiscal software by indicating that he was unfamiliar with the problem.
He noted that during his tenure as chairman of the U.S. Access Board he had
been instrumental in bringing the section 508 technology access guidelines
to the fore, and he explained that he urged Michigan's Department of
Information Technology to work toward these goals. Cannon reported that the
state's Information Technology Department indicated a willingness to strive
toward accessibility, but that they acknowledge continued deficiencies in
some of the state's systems. Cannon did admit that problems exist with the
personnel evaluation system and timekeeping programs, and he reported that
steps have been taken and are ongoing to address these challenges.
                                 **********
                            Commission Influence
                                 **********
      Critics inside and outside the Federation accuse Cannon of exercising
undue influence over the Commission board. They allege that Cannon has
usurped the Commission's legislative responsibilities through personal
manipulation and exertion of political influence. Distinguishing between a
strong executive and an inappropriate power-grabbing leader is sometimes
hard to do, so we will review several of the most striking examples of
alleged abuse.
      Objectors say that Cannon does not tolerate an independent, probing
Commission board. They allege that he does not permit Commission members to
exercise a policy-making role or to speak to agency staff members about
particular matters. When invited to comment, Cannon said that the
Commission board is authorized to conduct an annual evaluation and
appraisal of the director's work. "One of the phrases often used is that
the Commission can `direct the administrator but cannot administrate
directly.'" Cannon said that during his administration the Commissioners
have always discussed new agency policies. He added that, to avoid a top-
down approach, one of the principles outlined in his Vision 2020 initiative
is to involve the Commission board in policy-making activity. Cannon said
that he recognizes that advocates were disappointed that they couldn't get
the state legislature to give the Commission a stronger policy-making role
in the state's enabling legislation, PA-260.
      Clearly Cannon interprets the state's enabling legislation
conservatively in the power that it grants to the Commission board. During
the MCB board meeting on March 19, 2010, the National Federation of the
Blind of Michigan submitted several strongly worded position papers for the
members of the Commission board to consider. One analyzed the powers of the
Commission board, and argued that the Commission--defined as the governing
body and not just the agency--is "vested with the power to oversee
comprehensively the activities, the budget, the director, and the staff of
the organization known as the Michigan Commission for the Blind." To the
Commission board's credit, in response to our Michigan affiliate's
advocacy, the members of the MCB board have recently begun evaluating what
powers they actually have in overseeing the agency.  In a May 3, 2010,
meeting (now being challenged by our Michigan affiliate for being held in
closed executive session), the MCB board apparently received counsel that
they had the legal right to be more engaging with the agency's director. As
a consequence, the MCB board has asked to revisit some administrative law
judge decisions that it originally endorsed, at the director's
recommendation, to see if they were in fact fair. While the Monitor was
present in March, the Commission board appeared quite weak and reliant on
the MCB director and staff for guidance and simple functioning (on occasion
uncertain whether or not to subject items to a motion or other procedure),
but in recent weeks the board appears to have found some measure of
leadership resolve.
      Cannon is charged with working to remove individual members of the
Commission board with whom he has disagreed or whom he has found
troublesome. Former Commissioners Mark Eagle and Don Bowman accuse Cannon
of working to orchestrate their ouster from the MCB board. The former
commissioners and Cannon offer different versions of each story, but the
one consistent fact is that both of these commissioners appeared to be
uncharacteristically activist members of the Commission board prior to
their unconventional departures. Here is what we have been told by both
sides of each disputed story:
      Mark Eagle was one of the youngest members of the Michigan blind
community ever to serve on the MCB board. He resigned in the spring of 2009
because of alleged ethical conflicts as articulated in an opinion from the
State Ethics Board, relating to "pervasive" personal conflicts resulting
from Mark Eagle's father's frequent representation of blind vendors before
the board. Mark says:
                                 **********
My resignation was not, in fact, voluntary. Pat and the Governor's office
wanted me to be gone. To my knowledge none of my colleagues on the board
ever expressed any concerns about ethical issues I might face. I believe
Pat was the one behind all of this. He is the one who drafted the letter
requesting an opinion from the Ethics Board. I believe I was too strong a
voice for blind people on the board. I advocated on behalf of the
grassroots blind community in Michigan. I objected, for instance, to
receiving staff recommendations, including proposed voting directions, on
various topics. I thought this was inappropriate since the adversely
affected parties did not get an equal opportunity to make arguments to us.
I objected to specific contracts that the agency proposed entering into,
and Pat thought I crossed the line. I always recused myself whenever my
father would represent a vendor before the board. I never did anything
remotely unethical. As a candidate for the state legislature I was warned
of consequences from my own political party, though, if I failed to do
anything other than resign quietly.
                                 **********
      Cannon disagrees with Eagle's characterization of events. He says:
                                 **********
The former commissioner was a capable young man named Mark Eagle. I always
tried to play a mentoring role with regards to his hopes and dreams. I
originally encouraged Mark to become a part of our Youth Leadership Forum,
which served to help distinguish him. Before joining the MCB board, Mark
was chair of the Consumer Involvement Council. The bottom line is that he
resigned from the Commission board. He participated in activities that some
of our commissioners saw as a conflict of interest. Whether or not it was a
clear conflict is something to be pondered or debated; it was not clear
cut. I said to people that I couldn't make the decision that his behavior
was a conflict. I did point out instances to Mark where I did perceive
there was a conflict. Almost without exception, Mark listened well and took
steps to mitigate that perception. As these concerns continued to arise and
I didn't want to be the determinative factor, we considered the role of the
State Ethics Board. Mark was granted a hearing where he could present his
information. Ultimately they issued an advisory opinion suggesting that his
efforts to mitigate his personal conflicts could not be overcome. He
ultimately chose to resign.
                                 **********
      Don Bowman, a blind retired GM employee, served on the MCB board from
2000 to 2002. He resigned his position several months prematurely. Bowman
reports that he determined to seek the chairmanship of the MCB board on the
death of Earl Stenstrah, and he believes this prospect disturbed Cannon.
"He and his staff did not want me to exercise conservative leadership over
the board. I don't think they were being dishonest, but they were promoting
themselves more as an agency than as an entity committed to helping blind
people. They were spending too much money on travel, dinners, luncheons,
and sighted assistants for blind staff members. I was going to effect
change by voting on policy that would not approve things that were
unreasonable." Bowman believes that, after advocating that Cannon be
replaced, he was not reappointed because of Cannon's political influence.
According to Bowman, Cannon asked him to resign several meetings
prematurely so that the agency would not have to conduct two distinct
orientations. He reports that he told Cannon he would be happy to
relinquish his post if Cannon would write Bowman's resignation letter.
Bowman says this is what happened. Cannon does not concede that he
personally drafted Bowman's letter of resignation.
      While we cannot report with absolute certainty on these facts, it
seems clear that in at least these instances Cannon has exercised some
influence in ridding the MCB board of certain commissioners. Readers will
have to determine for themselves what to believe.
                                 **********
                     Business and Fiscal Irregularities
                                 **********
      In the course of our investigation, we discovered several fiscal
irregularities at the MCB that warrant brief attention. Sources familiar
with Opportunities Unlimited for the Blind (OUB), the entity that runs
Michigan's camp for blind youth at Camp Tuhsmeheta, report concerns about
the way in which Cannon and MCB management manipulate matching federal
dollars through the cash-match process. Basically this is a partnership
with several entities that uses local, state, and nonfederal resources to
draw down matching federal rehabilitation dollars. The concern is that
Cannon may use his discretion to give some of the matching federal funds
back to the entities that worked with his agency on terms favorable to the
Commission. Cannon could not say whether the MCB ever used its leverage to
compel OUB to pay the agency for services the commission theoretically
provided through the cash-match process in exchange for the Commission's
ultimate support of the camping program. Many believe, however, that Cannon
and the MCB use the cash-match process to reward its friends and punish its
enemies.
      George Wurtzel, a former blind contractor with the MCB, reported that
Cannon saw to it that Wurtzel's livelihood was largely destroyed in 2004,
after over five years of providing satisfactory services to the agency.
According to Wurtzel, he contracted with the Commission to warehouse,
transport, and set up vending equipment for the state's Randolph-Sheppard
program. He says that his services were professional and competitive.
Because George's brother, Fred Wurtzel, was the former manager of the
Commission's Business Enterprise Program, special arrangements were made to
guarantee that his contracts were fairly awarded, leaving Fred Wurtzel free
of any conflict. At some stage, however, Cannon apparently objected to this
contract and directed that it not be renewed. Wurtzel alleges that nobody
ever complained about his performance, and he says that the state paid more
for the services he had provided after Cannon terminated his contract.
Cannon declined to comment in detail on Wurtzel's allegations, saying only
that the facts as presented were not entirely accurate. In view of these
conflicting data, we are able to conclude only that Cannon may have used
his influence to terminate the employment opportunities of a blind
contractor, resulting in the purchase of services at costs greater than
those that the blind contractor offered.
                                 **********
                               Vending Issues
                                 **********
      Considerable turmoil in the Randolph-Sheppard Business Enterprise
Program (BEP) is brewing under Cannon's leadership at the MCB. In general
Michigan blind vendors allege in multiple cases on appeal that the
Commission, the certified state licensing agency, has abdicated its
responsibility to provide BEP participants the opportunity for active
participation in the administration of the program and basic due process
rights. The crisis in this program reached a fever pitch when, on Saturday,
March 20, 2010, the MCB board, agency staff, representatives from the
state's Committee of Elected Operators, and delegates from the two major
consumer organizations of the blind gathered at MCB headquarters to air
grievances and discuss solutions to the growing number of BEP issues. As of
this writing the Michigan BEP program faces additional change with the
promotion of James Hull, former assistant BEP manager, to the top spot for
this program, following Constance Zanger's relocation to administrative
services manager, a position made available with Heibeck's assumption of
duties at the MCBTC.
      Although we researched a number of individual vendor cases, we will
limit our consideration in this report to broader themes brought to light
through these challenges. This survey approach should not minimize the
often compelling and distressing circumstances of the individual cases
currently being argued in the state. Some blind vendors have been summarily
removed from their locations, forced to modify their standards of living,
and occasionally required to file bankruptcy or take other extreme measures
because of adverse action that the MCB has taken. Two of the vendors
subject to agency discipline have been presidents of our Michigan
affiliate's blind merchants division. Cannon and the agency's BEP
management are accused of not thoroughly advocating for the vendors'
federally guaranteed priority by acquiescing to the presence of competition
in federal and state facilities and adopting a lenient posture toward the
definition and presence of catering services that threaten vendor
opportunities in their locations. In one notable case a sighted temporary
BEP operator was kept in the Hall of Justice location as a result of
pressure from building tenants and a hostile letter from a member of the
Michigan Supreme Court urging that the MCB not replace this operator with a
qualified blind vendor. Fortunately this issue has recently been resolved
with the agency's agreement to place Roxanna Mann, a blind temporary
operator, in this facility, but this came about only after considerable
pressure from blind vendors and consumers.
      Further, the agency is accused of unfairly suspending the licenses of
blind vendors and having them immediately removed from their vending
locations without adequate opportunity for hearings. Operators allege that
the BEP management has created an unequal playing field by attaching a BEP
management comment to the ALJ (administrative law judge) decision for the
MCB board to consider and by canceling the practice of providing hearing
transcripts for arbitrations and other appeals, harming vendors already
displaced from their source of income. Blind vendors also say that a
disproportionate number of cases in the last several years have been
assigned to a hostile administrative law judge, Robert Meade, who regularly
fails to address the legal merits of the cases presented for his
consideration. While this is by no means an exhaustive list of issues
facing blind vendors in Michigan, it is a fair summary of the problems that
exist within the program.
      Cannon argues that the MCB has strongly advocated for preservation of
the priority for blind vendors and has specifically worked to craft a
catering policy that will benefit BEP operators. He asserts that the State
Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules has an arbitrary method for
assigning judges without the input of state agencies, and he discounts the
assertion that one judge has primarily managed this caseload. But the
Monitor has counted at least eight cases in the last few years that have
been heard by Meade, and we find it inconceivable that this count is merely
the product of coincidence.
      We are moderately comforted, however, by the prospect that a newly
empowered MCB board may decide to revisit some of the vendor decisions that
they previously endorsed at the agency's urging. If this occurs, the
individual disadvantage visited on several blind operators may be fairly
addressed. We can hope that the consumer advocacy that has pressed the MCB
board into a new posture of resolve will benefit blind vendors in Michigan.
Only time will tell.
                                 **********
                                 Conclusion
                                 **********
      Something clearly is amiss at the Michigan Commission for the Blind.
The Boone termination alone is cause for serious concern. But the violation
of ADA standards, Cannon's relatively heavy-handed management of the MCB
board, a suspicion of fiscal irregularities used to intimidate or retaliate
against blind people and small entities that serve the blind community, and
grave concerns about the Randolph-Sheppard Program all suggest that
problems are widespread in this separate rehabilitation agency for the
blind. In an era when separate services for blind consumers are
jeopardized, we are particularly alarmed to see that an ideally structured
agency would find itself in the middle of so much controversy. If this
series of articles does nothing else, it should call blind consumers to
action in vigilantly watching and working with their rehabilitation
agencies across the country to ensure that they represent the interests of
our constituency and reflect the values that we determine are right. Let us
not allow what appears to be amiss in Michigan to go unheeded there or
anywhere else across the country.
                                 ----------
                       [PHOTO CAPTION: Dan Goldstein]
 Achieving the Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the Digital
                                    Age:
                Current Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities
                           by Daniel F. Goldstein
                                 **********
      From the Editor: Dan Goldstein, a longtime friend and attorney for
the NFB with the firm of Brown, Goldstein, and Levy, LLP, delivered remarks
on access to technology in the digital age and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, on
Thursday, April 22, 2010. Mehgan Sidhu, an associate in Dan's firm who
works closely with him on these issues is largely responsible for drafting
the comments that he offered. The testimony provides an excellent survey of
current matters in this arena, so it seems useful for Monitor readers to
have this nicely organized presentation in one place. Inevitably details
will change in this area of the law, but Dan's statement provides an
effective snapshot of our advocacy and positions on matters as of today.
Here is what he said:
                                 **********
      Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here
today. As a partner in the Baltimore, Maryland, law firm of Brown,
Goldstein, & Levy, LLP, I have been engaged in disability-rights law,
principally on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) since
1986. In 1999 the NFB asked me to assist it in devising a strategy to
promote the accessibility of digital information through education,
negotiation, and litigation. I have devoted much of the last eleven years
to that effort.
      The ADA has played a valuable role in that undertaking as we have
worked to make Websites, workplace software applications, ATMs, voting
machines, cell phones, and eBook reading devices accessible to people with
vision and print disabilities. The challenge is immense. Digital
information is everywhere, from consumer electronics and home appliances to
the Internet, from computer screens and mobile devices to ticket kiosks and
ATMs. It is difficult to identify an activity in modern American life in
which digital information does not play a role.
      Because digital information is composed of zeros and ones, it is not
inherently visual, aural, or tactile, but can be presented in any one or
all of those modes with equivalent facility. Thus the ubiquitous use of
digital information should be great news for those who cannot access print
because of a disability-whether it's a vision disability, a learning
disability, an intellectual disability, or a manual impairment or spinal
cord injury. Similarly, digital information that was traditionally
presented as speech can now produce mainstream accessibility for those with
hearing impairments.
      Sadly, however, the potential for the disability community to have
mainstream and therefore equal access has not been realized. So much
electronic information is presented so that it is accessible to only one
sense, resulting in persons with disabilities having unequal access and
therefore being denied the opportunity for equal participation in all
spheres of life. Thus, to give you a homely example, something as simple as
setting the thermostat in one's house, which a blind person could formerly
do by adding tactile markings to the dial that controlled the thermostat,
is now an inaccessible activity. Even though digital temperature controls
could communicate both visually and audibly, most provide only visual
information, leaving blind people worse off than before.
                                 **********
                A.) The ADA and Public Accommodation Websites
                                 **********
      The ADA is key to unlocking these doors. Title III of the ADA applies
to public accommodations, defined as twelve categories of commercial
entities that interact with the public. We believe both the intent and the
language of the ADA cover Websites and other digital information and
services provided by those covered entities, regardless of whether those
entities also operate brick-and-mortar locations.
      In 1999, on behalf of the NFB, I filed suit in federal court in
Massachusetts against America Online for violating Title III of the ADA by
failing to make its service accessible to the blind. The First Circuit had
held in the context of insurance services that a public accommodation may
be covered under Title III of the ADA without the activity being linked to
a physical place of public accommodation. We were anxious to follow that
case law to its logical conclusion, that Websites that offer the services
of a public accommodation, as delineated in Title III, are likewise covered
by the ADA. However, AOL quickly decided to make its Website fully
accessible, so the matter was settled without creating any judicial
precedent.
      In 2006 we filed suit against the Target Corporation over the
inaccessibility of its Website. After the federal court in San Francisco
ruled that the portions of the Website that had a nexus to the physical
stores were covered by the ADA, Target settled and has since made its
Website fully accessible.
      Opponents of the application of Title III to commercial and
educational Websites might argue that some federal case law supports the
proposition that e-commerce is outside the scope of the ADA. There is a
line of reasoning adopted in some circuits that a place of public
accommodation, within the meaning of Title III, must be an "actual,
physical" place. These courts have held that, to state a claim under Title
III, the plaintiff must allege either that there has been discrimination in
a physical place or that there is a nexus between the challenged act of
discrimination and a physical place of public accommodation. This approach
stands in stark contrast to the more commonsense view adopted by several
other circuits that the phrase "public accommodation" encompasses more than
just physical structures.
      Most cases addressing the place argument have been in the context of
insurance, considering whether the ADA's nondiscrimination requirements
govern the substance of insurance policies. None of the circuit courts
adopting the physical-place line of reasoning have addressed the precise
question of whether public accommodations that operate through the Internet
or its Websites are places of public accommodation under Title III. So we
do not currently know what conclusion these circuits would reach on that
issue.
      In today's increasingly online society, limiting the ADA (or any civil
rights law) to only those businesses that operate in physical facilities
would undermine the fundamental goals of civil rights. Given that one of
the essential purposes of Title III is to eliminate discrimination against
people with disabilities in the basic, day-to-day activities that are a
fundamental part of living and functioning in a community, it is hard to
imagine that coverage would depend on whether a covered entity offers its
services and goods in a physical location, door-to-door, by phone, or
online. In an age where hundreds of millions of Americans are increasingly
using the Internet every day to shop for groceries, plan their travel,
conduct business, do their banking, attend college classes, and socialize
with friends and family, it is undeniable that these Websites are an
indispensable part of basic, day-to-day life in the community.
      Despite this obvious reality of life in the Internet era, one district
court, in Access Now v. Southwest Airlines Co. has erroneously extended the
physical-place line of reasoning to conclude that it would not apply Title
III to prohibit discriminatory access to Southwest's Website, where the
plaintiff had failed to allege a nexus between the site and a physical,
brick-and-mortar place. I have no doubt that the district court's
interpretation of Title III in the Southwest case was incorrect and that a
federal court of appeals squarely presented with the issue should reach the
conclusion that Title III applies to goods and services provided over the
Internet. But the fact that the district court strayed so far from Title
III's fundamental purpose was troubling and is one of the reasons that I
applaud the Committee's decision to hold this hearing.
      In light of Assistant Attorney General Perez's affirmation last week
that the Department of Justice continues to believe that public
accommodations are covered by Title III, even when they reach the public
only via Websites, it seems to me that the time has come to test this
proposition in the courts as well as through the development of regulations
by the Department of Justice.
      Court cases aside, in the years since the Internet has become a
mainstay of American life, some advocates and covered entities have reached
agreements about accessibility of Internet sites. Among the Websites that
have reached such agreements, variously with the NFB, the American Council
of the Blind, and the New York and Massachusetts Offices of Attorney
General are Amazon.com, Apple's iTunes, Major League Baseball, CVS, Radio
Shack, Rite Aid, Staples, Ramada Hotels, and Priceline.com. Other companies
with commercial Websites have reached out proactively to secure
certification from the NFB that their Websites are accessible, including
both large companies like G.E. and NewEgg and small businesses like my law
firm.
      These agreements and the Target case have had a positive impact in
increasing Website accessibility across the commercial industry. A study of
the top thirty-two online retailers' Websites that analyzed the Websites'
accessibility one year before the Target decision and one year following
the decision found a significant improvement in overall accessibility.
Using the standards and tools provided by the ADA, we are seeing voice-
guided ATMs and accessible point-of-sale machines. In the case of the
former, with the recent announcement by Bank of America that all of its
ATMs now have voice guidance and my settlement with the largest nonbank
deployer of ATMs, Cardtronics, inaccessible ATMs are becoming the exception
rather than the rule.
      ATMs, however, provide an important lesson. The technology to make
ATMs accessible is older than the technology to make ATMs, and the
additional cost of accessibility in manufacturing and deploying ATMs is
marginal. However, delay by banks and other deployers of ATMs to comply
with the ADA until the national fleet of ATMs was mature led to a
tremendous and unnecessary increase in costs in retrofitting or replacing
functioning inaccessible ATMs. It also needlessly delayed the blind from
having this convenience that so many rely on.
      When new technologies find acceptance in the marketplace, their
adoption and improvement often occur with dizzying speed. When
accessibility is not built in from the outset, however, the disability
community suffers significant competitive disadvantages, whose later
correction may come only as that technology is being replaced by something
newer or better. When a Microsoft offers first Windows Vista and then
Windows 7 that were accessible from the day each went on the market, or
Apple develops, as it has, a technology that allows the controls of its
iPad to be accessible to the blind, this is cause for celebration.
      The list of other technologies that have been accessible from their
entry into the market, however, remains far too short. Gratuitous barriers
to accessibility are still the rule and not the exception. Improved clarity
about the application of the ADA to public accommodations operating over
the Internet will help. As is demonstrated by the experience of educational
institutions, once the purchasers of technology understand their
obligations and insist on accessibility by their suppliers, accessibility
becomes mainstreamed.
                                 **********
              B.) Inaccessible Digital Information in Education
                                 **********
      Nowhere is the impact of digital information felt more than in the
field of education. The impact is pronounced here, perhaps more than in any
other sphere, because digital information and electronic technology have
the potential to change the game for students with print disabilities.
However, educational institutions are not meeting that potential. For
example, a 2008 study that examined the accessibility of postsecondary
education Webpages found that 97 percent of the institutions in its sample
contained significant accessibility barriers. The study examined only top
or home pages of university Websites, suggesting that the significant
barriers are even more deeply entrenched than indicated by the study.
      That the vast majority of educational institutions fail to recognize
their obligations under the ADA to make their Website information
accessible is only the tip of the iceberg. Reliance on online education is
steeply increasing, with online enrollments growing substantially faster
than overall higher education enrollments in the past six years. Meanwhile,
digital books, course management systems, and other educational
technologies have become an integral part of postsecondary education. Many
of these technologies are completely and gratuitously inaccessible to
students and others with print disabilities. While universities and
institutions have often failed to appreciate their obligations under the
ADA and their commercial power as consumers of educational technology, some
positive examples of success demonstrate the kind of impact institutions
can have if their obligations under the ADA are made clear and enforceable.
                                 **********
                   i.) Universities and Amazon's Kindle DX
                                 **********
      In February 2009 the Kindle 2 was introduced with a read-out-loud
feature but with on-screen navigation that was not voiced and was therefore
inaccessible to the blind. The Association of American Publishers and the
Authors Guild sought to have Amazon terminate this feature. In response the
Reading Rights Coalition was formed, thirty-two nonprofits representing the
print-disability community-including, among others, the blind, people with
dyslexia and other learning disabilities, those with cerebral palsy, and
those with upper spinal cord injuries. The Coalition worked on one hand to
protect the inclusion of Text-to-Speech while fighting to have Amazon allow
its menus to talk and thus make the device accessible.
      In May 2009 Amazon announced the launch of its Kindle DX eBook reader,
which it had designed for educational use. Because Amazon failed to include
accessible navigational controls, the device was inaccessible to the blind.
Six colleges and universities simultaneously announced they would be
deploying the Kindle DX during the 2009-2010 academic year. The National
Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind filed a
complaint in federal court against Arizona State University and filed
complaints with the Department of Justice and Department of Education
against the remaining schools (Pace University, Case Western Reserve
University, Reed College, Princeton University, and the University of
Virginia's Darden School of Business). These complaints alleged that, by
deploying the inaccessible Kindle, the colleges and universities violated
their obligations under Titles II and III of the ADA to provide equal
access to their services. While sighted students would benefit from the
instant access, note-taking, and other services of the Kindle, blind
students would be left behind, forced to rely on separate methods of access
that are significantly inferior to even the print textbook experience. The
complaint against the University of Virginia is still pending with the
Department of Education, but the NFB, the ACB, and the Department of
Justice secured settlements with the other five schools under which those
schools agreed, after the end of this semester, not to deploy inaccessible
eBook readers.
      While those complaints were pending, other universities stepped
forward to pledge publically they would not adopt eBook technologies on
their campuses-including the Kindle-unless and until they were accessible.
Those universities included Syracuse University, the University of
Wisconsin, and the University of Illinois. In response to this pressure
Amazon announced that it would release a fully accessible Kindle in the
summer of 2010. And on March 9, 2010, the Reading Rights Coalition, the
Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild issued a joint
statement, released on the White House blog, supporting mainstream
accessibility when books are issued in formats other than print, such as
eBooks and audio books.
                                 **********
                  ii.) Libraries and Adobe Digital Editions
                                 **********
      Adobe Digital Editions is the leading commercial eBook format used by
libraries and also the format that can be read on the inaccessible Sony
eBook reader. Until March 2009 Adobe eBooks had been accessible to those
who require speech to access text and who downloaded those books to a PC.
In March 2009, however, Adobe stopped support of that accessible system and
switched to a new, inaccessible eBook platform, called Adobe Digital
Editions. As a result numerous public library patrons with disabilities
could no longer access their libraries' digital collections.
      Advocacy from the Burton Blatt Institute and the Reading Rights
Coalition prompted the American Library Association to adopt a resolution
strongly recommending that libraries ensure that all electronic resources
they procure are accessible to people with disabilities. Shortly thereafter
the Los Angeles Public Library, responding to a letter from the Reading
Rights Coalition, agreed to suspend future procurement of Adobe Digital
Editions books until they are fully accessible. In response Adobe announced
that it would release an accessible Adobe Digital Editions in 2010. Thus,
when institutional customers of technology like libraries act on their
obligations under the ADA, the developers of those technologies find strong
economic motivation to remove the barriers to accessibility.
                                 **********
              iii.) California State University and BlackBoard
                                 **********
      California State University succeeded in moving one of the leading
course-management software systems, BlackBoard Learn, toward accessibility.
In the late 1990s the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights
launched an investigation into California State University campuses'
compliance with, among other statutes, Title II of the ADA. In response the
Cal State system revamped its approach to providing access to students with
disabilities and has become a leader and model for educational institutions
to follow. Specifically, rather than delegating accessibility obligations
to an isolated disability student services office, as most universities do,
Cal State established a system-wide, coordinated approach to accessibility.
Under this approach accessibility experts work closely with the
university's information officers to ensure that the technology the
university employs is accessible. Through this arrangement Cal State
requires that new technologies it procures be accessible to its students.
When Cal State put out a request for proposals for new course-management
software, it turned down BlackBoard-the leading purveyor of course-
management software-because it did not meet Cal State's accessibility
requirements. Since that time BlackBoard has issued two new releases of its
software that greatly enhance its accessibility.
                                 **********
                 C.) The Next Steps to Access to Technology
                                 **********
      We are not even halfway there on making the Internet accessible and in
making accessible the technologies used in the workplace and offered
through public accommodations, like educational institutions. And, of
course, new technologies continue to develop and flourish with astonishing
speed. The barriers to accessibility, however, are not the result, for the
most part, of intractable technological issues and need not (and as a
practical matter, would not) slow down innovation. The biggest contributor
to the growing accessibility gap continues to be a lack of commitment to
making technology accessible.
      The ADA was a tremendous normative statement of the importance we
attach as a nation to equal opportunity without regard to disability. But,
while the disability community has the responsibility to use the ADA and
the other tools offered by federal and state laws, government must continue
to make clear its commitment to that promise as well. The National
Broadband Plan, for example, states as one of its goals that all Americans
should have affordable access to robust broadband service and the means and
skills to subscribe if they so choose. It envisions, among other things,
improvements in public education through e-learning and online content and
improvements in healthcare through the expansion of e-care. Without
concrete steps to build in accessibility at every stage and level, this
promise to every American will not be realized. Recognizing this, the
National Broadband Plan specifically states that hardware, software,
services, and digital content must be accessible and assistive technologies
must be affordable. The Plan calls on the federal government to be a model
of accessibility; to specifically support innovation in accessibility; and
to clarify and modernize its accessibility laws, enforcement efforts, and
subsidy programs. In that respect the federal government has a long way to
go since it has failed to monitor and enforce the provisions of Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act.
      The National Education Technology Plan, currently in draft form,
addresses to some degree the need for education technology to be designed
for mainstream accessibility for those with disabilities, and we hope the
final draft will be more robust. However, recent draft rules regarding
Health Information Technology fail to incorporate accessibility
wholeheartedly. Again, the federal government must make sure that the
execution follows the good intentions.
      Our milestones under the ADA thus far have been significant, but we
remain far behind where we ought to be in an era that relies so
intrinsically upon digital information. The near future will only expedite
the transition to digital information in critical sectors-including
education, employment, healthcare, commerce, and social life. If we do not
ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to digital
information, they face exclusion from participation in our society.
      The commitment we have already seen from the Department of Justice
will take us nearer that goal. The Department of Education, Department of
Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Federal
Communications Commission, and others have important opportunities to
advance accessible technology as well. There are good reasons to believe
that the disability community, acting for itself and with the support of
governmental entities, can make great strides toward the day that it no
longer must settle for separate and unequal access to technology but will
have, instead, the same access to mainstream technology and thus an equal
opportunity to participate in the educational, economic, and social life of
this country.
      Thank you.
                                 ----------
                        [PHOTO CAPTION: Jesse Hartle]
                Carmakers Agree to Make Electric Cars Noisier
                           by Peter Valdes-Depena
                                ************
      From the Editor: The following article was taken from <CNNMoney.com>
after its posting on May 20, 2010. It reports on the joint industry and
blindness community agreement to have the terms of our legislative proposal
advanced in Congress. Provisions of our original legislation have now been
incorporated into the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, H.R. 5381 and its
Senate companion, which is broader legislation that addresses the recently
published difficulties with Toyota cars. At this writing we are optimistic
that having our quiet car language incorporated into this mainstream
legislation promises great potential for its passage later this fall.
Monitor readers should stay tuned for any additional direction issued from
Jesse Hartle, NFB government programs specialist. He is primarily
responsible for our advocacy of this legislation. Here is the article:
                                 **********
      Automakers and advocates for the blind have agreed on a plan to
address an unintended problem caused by electric and hybrid cars: they
endanger sight-impaired and distracted pedestrians because they make no
noise when running on electric power. The groups joined together to present
Congress with a proposal for minimum noise levels that future electric cars
would have to make. Sometimes even sighted pedestrians can be unaware of
the cars' approach. "As a person who walks my dog in Virginia, where there
are no sidewalks, I've been startled by hybrid cars, too," said Gloria
Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
      A study done last year by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration showed that hybrid cars tend to hit pedestrians more often
than other cars in situations where the approaching car cannot be seen. The
AAM, along with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers,
the American Council of the Blind, and the National Federation of the
Blind, presented Congress with suggested language that could become part of
the Motor Safety Act of 2010, a bill now moving through Congress that would
create a host of new auto safety rules.
      The proposed language would have NHTSA create a new safety standard
for electrically powered cars involving some sort of minimum sound required
when operating at low speeds. At higher speeds wind and tire noise are
typically enough to make the car detectable.
      The sound couldn't be just anything. For instance, vehicle owners
would not be able to customize the sound of their car the same way they can
download ringtones for cell phones. That's specifically prohibited in the
proposed rule. Instead, car manufacturers would provide an approved sound
or set of sounds for a given make and model of car. It would be up to NHTSA
to set the minimum noise level a vehicle would have to make at givens
speeds and to determine what sort of sounds would be allowed. The sounds
would need to communicate something about the car's speed and acceleration,
just as the sound of a rumbling gasoline engine does.
                                 ----------
       Comments on the Draft National Educational Technology Plan 2010
              Prepared by the National Federation of the Blind
                                ************
      We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft plan
entitled "Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology"
as released by the Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of
Education, on March 5, 2010. The comments offered below by the National
Federation of the Blind express our serious concern that this plan fails to
recognize the need for the U.S. Department of Education to provide
concentrated leadership in both policy and practice, in order to ensure
that students with disabilities can take full advantage of the
opportunities offered by emerging educational technologies in America's
classrooms.
      We are pleased to see the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP)
embraces principles of universal design for learning, including for
students with disabilities. However, the attention the NETP pays to
accessibility for people with disabilities is disproportionate to its great
importance. The significance of accessibility to people with disabilities
must play a more prominent role throughout the NETP. Because accessibility
to students and teachers with disabilities impinges on every aspect of the
NETP, the impact on people with disabilities should be acknowledged
consistently and repeatedly throughout the report. Further, because
accessible mainstream technology requires specific and significant
considerations beginning in its design phase, accessibility for people with
disabilities must be treated with greater detail in the NETP, as opposed to
merely being a bullet point within the section on universal design.
      Overall, what is missing from the NETP is an appreciation of the
opportunity and challenge that technology presents for teachers and
students with disabilities. We have the opportunity for the first time to
change the paradigm--to reduce drastically the necessity for separate and
unequal special education resources by allowing people with print
disabilities to have the same access to education as their nondisabled
peers. If appropriate standards are properly implemented, we have the
opportunity to ensure that access to educational materials is a nonissue
for a blind student or one with cerebral palsy who cannot hold her head and
hands steady enough to read a book. At present these students are consigned
to separate and not equal access, and the mainstream resources (many of
which will be developed by mainstream, highly capitalized technology
companies) will always outstrip any separate special resources.
      The challenge is that, as technologies are adopted in the schools,
the disability community will be left behind and thus left out. Because of
the logarithmic pace at which technology develops, there is no such thing
as being a near-follower of technology, and, if the early decisions are
made without consideration of students and teachers with disabilities, the
educational gap between those with disabilities and those without will
widen from the width of the Grand Canyon to that of the Pacific Ocean. If
the message of inclusive technology is not to be lost, it must be stated,
not just as a bullet point in a section on universal design, but be
included consistently, repeatedly, and in detail (as when a goal is stated
for equal outcomes for persons without regard to income or race, but not
for persons with disabilities).
      So that the report can strike effective notes, let's briefly consider
some of the barriers. First is the cubby-holing of accessibility at the
Department of Education. For example, the Department of Education funds
grants for both accessible technology and mainstream educational
technology, but in the latter case it fails to include accessibility as a
requirement in the RFP or in the actual grant itself, thereby perpetuating
a separate and unequal status for those with disabilities. This dichotomy
is to be found throughout the educational system. Universities and
colleges, for example, routinely procure and adopt new technologies, such
as course management systems, iTunes U, and digital reading systems like
the Kindle without any consideration of their accessibility, and it is
nearly unheard of for the CIO of a college, university, or school system to
consult with its own disability service offices in selecting the technology
that is adopted.
      Without market demand or insistence by the Department of Education on
compliance with federal law, the inevitable result is inaccessible
technology and a deepening discrimination against those with disabilities.
It should be noted that the barriers are not technological and that
mainstream access occurs when it is required, as witnessed by (1) the
latest version of Blackboard's becoming substantially more accessible after
Cal State refused to let Blackboard bid while its course management
software was inaccessible; (2) iTunes U's becoming fully accessible after
the NFB threatened Apple's collegiate partners with lawsuits; and (3)
Amazon's announcing it would produce an accessible Kindle after the
Department of Justice secured consent decrees from the colleges to cease
and desist its inaccessible Kindle pilot projects.
      Although these examples come from higher education, the lesson is
equally true for K-12. Unfortunately, however, disability groups do not
have the legal opportunities to be an agent for change in K-12 that they do
in the college arena. Thus the responsibility of the Department of
Education to take a leadership role here is greater.
      At present, by largely confining accessibility to people with
disabilities to a bullet point within the NETP, the Department of Education
loses a unique opportunity to ensure that technology is transformative for
this group. It is also critical that the demand be stated unambiguously:
that all technology adopted be accessible. Since this is the law, it is a
reasonable request. It is in that spirit that we offer the following
suggested actions for inclusion in the final version of the plan:
 1. Throughout the NETP "disability" should be added when identifying
achievement gaps. Blind students and other students with disabilities are
underserved in the same way as students of a racial minority or of a lower
socioeconomic status. To ensure the current inequality of service delivery
is addressed, the NETP must include disability as an overarching theme as
it does race, income, and neighborhood.
 2. The standard of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) cited in the
NETP is very broad and as a result deemphasizes the type of accessibility
required for viable nonvisual access. The UDL definition should be appended
to include items 3.a.i and 3.a.ii below.
 3. Far too many of the interactive educational technologies that enrich
the learning experiences of students today are inaccessible to blind,
dyslexic, and other print-disabled children. If educational technology
continues to be made without consideration of accessibility at the outset,
the gap in service delivery--and consequently achievement--between those
students with print disabilities and those without will grow exponentially.
Accessibility fits the definition of a "grand challenge problem" as
outlined in the NETP and should be added as an additional problem to
address. The problem should be addressed in the following manner:
 a. Research should be done in collaboration with the National Federation
of the Blind and other blindness and print-disability organizations to
create standards for the development of accessible educational
technologies.
      i. The standards will ensure the nonvisual experience with technology
is as rich as the visual experience.
      ii. The standard will require that the ease of use of all
technologies is the same regardless of whether the means of access is
visual or nonvisual.
 b. Once standards are developed, they should be published, and
manufacturers of educational technology should be required to adhere to
those standards when producing new technologies.
 4. Accessibility must be treated with particularity within the NETP.
Though there are some overlapping issues between students with
disabilities, English language learners, pre-k students, and low-income and
minority learners, accessibility for learners with disabilities is
distinct. Substantial action must be taken in the design phase of
technological development to produce an accessible product. For this reason
accessibility should be addressed both throughout the report and in a
separate section. The necessity of accessibility needs to be prominent in
this report to ensure that all learners can truly benefit from the
resulting technological and pedagogical reform.
 5. As the medium of textbook production shifts from physical books to
digital content, the field must move away from the NIMAS standard--a
separate and inferior regulation--and capitalize on mainstream technology.
The production of mainstream accessible textbooks is a far superior
solution for students with disabilities. This issue should be addressed in
the separate section on accessibility that we recommended in item four.
                                 ----------
                      [PHOTO CAPTION: Ann S. Williams]
                               Special Report:
  A Study on the Accuracy of Dosing with Insulin Pens by Blind and Sighted
                                   People
                      by Ann S. Williams, PhD, RN, CDE
                                 **********
      From the Editor:  Ann Williams has worked in the field of diabetes
and blindness for some time. She has been a frequent contributor to our
former publication, Voice of the Diabetic.  Here is a report on a research
project she undertook, in consultation with the National Federation of the
Blind, during last year's convention.
                                 **********
      Last summer, through the Diabetes Action Network (DAN) and the
Jernigan Institute, the National Federation of the Blind collaborated with
me in a small but significant research project. Its purpose was to compare
the accuracy of blind and sighted people who used insulin pens to deliver
doses of insulin into a small rubber ball.
                                 **********
Background
      To understand the importance of this project and why the NFB was
involved, it helps to know a little about insulin pens and the history of
their use. Insulin pens were first invented in the late 1980s as a
convenient, easy, and accurate way to deliver precise amounts of insulin.
They are the size and shape of an old-fashioned fountain pen except that
instead of ink they are filled with insulin, and instead of pen tips they
have disposable, screw-on needles. To set the dose, the person using the
pen turns a knob on the end opposite the needle, which makes a small click
that can be heard and felt for each unit of insulin dialed. (A few pens
make a click for each 1/2 unit.) People who see well can confirm the dose
set by reading a number in a small window near the knob.
      Although insulin pens were not specifically designed for use by blind
people, they are particularly useful for blind diabetics because a person
merely needs to count the number of clicks to determine the amount of
insulin dialed. Consequently, blind people with diabetes began using them
almost as soon as they appeared on the market. Many blind people have used
them safely for years. For a more detailed discussion of how to use an
insulin pen, see an article by Tom Ley that first appeared in the Voice of
the Diabetic, archived on the NFB Website at
<http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/vod/vod215/vodwin0708.htm.>
      Shortly after the pens were first introduced, the major manufacturers
began including a disclaimer in the instructions saying that insulin pens
should not be used by people with visual impairment. This disclaimer has
remained in the packaging for many years, even though thousands of blind
people all over the world have used insulin pens safely. Unfortunately, the
disclaimer causes some healthcare professionals to doubt that blind people
can in fact safely use insulin pens. Some doctors and other prescribers
therefore refuse to write prescriptions for insulin pens for people who do
not see well.

      The Diabetes Action Network has recognized this as a problem for blind
diabetics. In 2008 the NFB passed a resolution calling for the removal of
this disclaimer. You can read the resolution at <www.nfb.org> by following
links from the Publications page.

      My experience with insulin pens, both as a nurse diabetes educator
and as a person with diabetes, has been very positive. I have used insulin
pens myself and have taught hundreds of blind and sighted people how to use
them. I have seen in clinical experience that most blind people are able to
use insulin pens accurately unless they have additional problems such as
numb hands or impaired memory. Sighted people who have such problems often
have trouble using insulin pens. Both because of this experience with
insulin pens and because I know some people who were denied the benefits of
using insulin pens because of vision loss, I decided to do a research
project to develop the rigorous evidence that could encourage manufacturers
to remove the disclaimer from the insulin pen instructions. [1]
                                ************
Design of the Study
      The study was designed to compare the accuracy of dosing between
thirty sighted and thirty blind people. Each person either read the
instructions included with the pen or listened to a recording of those
instructions, depending on their eyesight. The recordings contained the
same information included in the printed instructions, with verbal
descriptions of all pictures and nonvisual techniques for steps in the
procedures that assumed good vision. While people read or listened to the
instructions, they handled the pen and the supplies that go with it, trying
it out until they felt sure they knew how to use it. Each person injected
ten doses of insulin into a rubber ball. The ball was weighed on a very
precise scale immediately before and after each injection, giving the exact
weight of the insulin delivered into the ball. This allowed us to calculate
exactly how much insulin was delivered in each dose.
      The reason for designing the project as a comparison is that any
group of people delivering a lot of insulin doses would make at least some
mistakes. If only blind people had participated in the study and had made
mistakes, people reading the study report might debate what level of
accuracy was acceptable. However, if blind people made some mistakes with
their dosing but overall were about as accurate as sighted people,
manufacturers would have no reason to keep the disclaimer on their insulin
pens.
                                 **********
Funding for the Study
      I was able to obtain funding for this study through a small grant
from the American Association of Diabetes Educators and Sigma Theta Tau, an
international nursing honors society. The Jernigan Institute of the NFB
also contributed to the project by making the pilot study possible, by
helping recruitment of blind participants for the larger study, and by
allowing me to do part of the study at the 2009 NFB Convention.
                                 **********
Doing the Study
      The first part of the study was a small pilot conducted with twelve
NFB staff members at the National Center. The purpose was to try all the
procedures and work out the problems before doing the larger study. I went
to Baltimore with a research assistant, and the NFB provided a room to
conduct the study while we were there. The NFB staff members who tried out
the study procedures gave me valuable feedback that we used to fine tune
the instructions and procedures. This feedback also helped us understand
how to ensure accurate measurements of the doses that the participants in
our main study actually delivered.
      After the pilot was complete, we did the main study. The Jernigan
Institute helped by publicizing the study and asking NFB members to
participate. To do the study itself, I went to the 2009 NFB convention in
Detroit along with two research assistants. There we met with blind
diabetics so they could listen to the recordings, deliver insulin doses
into the ball, and have the doses weighed. Being able to meet with so many
blind diabetics in one place was an important part of making this study
possible.
      After I returned home, I recruited thirty sighted people with
diabetes who also received instruction in insulin pens, gave ten doses into
a rubber ball, and had the doses weighed.
                                 **********
Results
      After the study was completed, we found no significant differences in
the accuracy of doses between those given by blind people and those given
by sighted people. Both groups delivered many accurate doses, and both also
made some mistakes. The level of mistakes was about the same for both
groups.
      The results of this study have been published in the May issue of the
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. I chose to publish in this
journal because many people who design diabetes equipment and make
decisions about manufacturing it read it.
The first major lesson of this study is that the evidence does not support
inclusion of a disclaimer warning against use of insulin pens by visually
impaired people. The study was small enough that the insulin pen companies
and government regulatory agencies may not accept the evidence as
conclusive. They will probably want to see a study that includes many more
people before they actually remove the disclaimer. However, this study
represents an important first step, one that will make it easy for
interested researchers to justify doing a larger study to confirm these
results.
      Another lesson of this study for manufacturers of health care
technology is that it is important to include people with disabilities in
research about the usability of their products. For example, according to
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, about 3.6 million people have
diabetes and visual impairment. This is about 20 percent of the people with
diagnosed diabetes. However, many manufacturers ignore this 20 percent when
they conduct their studies. They should, however, be interested in knowing
whether their product can be used properly by this very large minority
group. Including people with disabilities in diabetes technology studies is
not only ethically right, but also financially sound. The 20 percent of
people with diabetes who do not see well do buy products for treating
diabetes. Any company that has tested their products in this population and
found them useful to blind people will have a marketing advantage. With
proper product testing among people with disabilities of all kinds, a
company could market to all groups that can use their product--not just to
people who happen to have no current disability.
      Finally, a third important lesson concerns the importance of
intelligent collaboration between the NFB and researchers. We need each
other and can benefit each other greatly. As a researcher I was very
grateful for the help I received from the Jernigan Institute--from the use
of a room for the pilot study, to the expert advice from NFB staff members,
through the help with recruitment of participants and access to people at
last year's national NFB convention. Without this valuable assistance I
would have had a much harder time conducting sound research with blind
participants, and overall it would have been much more difficult to
complete the project. NFB's help benefited me greatly. In return this
project will ultimately benefit NFB members and all blind diabetics by
providing real evidence of the true abilities of blind people and
ultimately by enhancing the access of blind people to a useful product. Our
collaboration in this project has been a win-win situation for us all and
is a good model for further work together.
                                 ----------
                     [PHOTO CAPTION: Mary Ellen Gabias]
                  More Absurd Research to Bother the Blind
                                 **********
      From Barbara Pierce: In the past, would-be helpful Hannahs have
invented combination white canes and snow shovels for the blind, special
toilet paper dispensers for the blind, red strobe lights and flashlights
clipped to the cane for use at intersections, and dozens of other pointless
devices. Now Swedish researchers have decided that, because we can't
identify facial expressions, we need computerized assistance in order to
converse effectively with others. It is possible that such technology might
be helpful to some people on the autism spectrum who cannot make
connections between facial expressions and the emotions that cause them,
but aiming such research at solving nonexistent problems for blind people
is perverse and will only complicate our efforts to persuade people that we
are normal folks who can't see. As Mary Ellen Gabias pointed out in her
message transmitting the following report, "This sort of research is
particularly harmful to parents of blind children who already wonder how
their kids will interact socially. If some of these researchers have their
way, the blind will become bionic people with computers and other machines
poking out of every pocket and attached to every body part. I understand
that some sighted people don't know what to do at first when they can't
make eye contact with a blind person, but let's not get carried away."
      Mary Ellen is a longtime Federationist who lives with her husband and
children in British Columbia, where she is a leader of the Canadian
Federation of the Blind. After she read this article in the April 28, 2010,
issue of Science Daily, she wrote the following letter to the chief
researcher. Here is her letter followed by the Science Daily article:
                                 **********
      I read in Science Daily for April 28 about a new device which your
organization has researched to help blind people read the emotional content
of facial expressions through a tactile display. I believe your research is
predicated on a false premise. It is true that sighted people use facial
expressions to determine the emotional state of the person with whom they
are interacting. However, the fact that millions of telephone conversations
take place every day, some including highly emotional content, demonstrates
that observing facial expression is not necessary for complete
communication.
      Human beings are highly resilient and adaptable. Deaf people have
developed a thoroughly articulate language that requires no sound
transmission. Blind people are able to understand nuanced emotions using
auditory cues and without visual clues. The fact that most people use one
sense for gathering information does not mean that other sources of that
information are inaccurate or inferior.
      I recommend that your organization work with the Jernigan Institute,
an internationally renowned research organization operated by blind people
for blind people. I also invite you to read The Value of Decision, a speech
delivered by Dr. Marc Maurer at the annual convention of the National
Federation of the Blind in the United States. It can be found at <
www.nfb.org > by following the links from the Publications page.
      I have shared the news report of your research with a number of blind
friends and colleagues. Their reaction has been universally derisive. They
feel, as I do, that blind people suffer more from negative attitudes
reinforced by the promulgation of such research than we do from being
unable to see facial expressions.
      I have written bluntly because scarce research dollars should be
spent on truly meaningful projects, not on creating devices that have the
effect of increasing social isolation by reinforcing the notion that sight
is necessary for normal communication.
                                 **********
Very truly yours,
Mary Ellen Gabias
                                 **********
        New Braille Technology Helps Visually Impaired "See" Emotions
                                 **********
      Without vision it's impossible to interpret facial expressions, or so
it's believed. Not any more. Shafiq ur Rhman, Ume University, presents a
new technology in his doctoral thesis-a Braille code of emotions. "It gives
new opportunities for social interactions for the visually impaired," he
says. Lacking the sense of vision can be very limiting in a person's daily
life. The most obvious limitation is probably the difficulty of navigation,
but small details in everyday life, which seeing people take for granted,
are also missed. One of those things is the ability to see a person during
a conversation. Facial expressions provide emotional information and are
important in communication. A smile shows pleasure, amusement, relief, etc.
Missing information from facial expressions create[s] barriers to social
interactions.
      "Blind persons compensate for missing information with other senses
such as sound. But it is difficult to understand complex emotions with
voice alone," says Shafiq ur Rhman. His thesis addresses a challenging
problem: how to let visually impaired "see" others' emotions. To make this
possible, the research group has developed a new technology based on an
ordinary Web camera, hardware as small as a coin, and a tactile display.
This enables the visually impaired to directly interpret human emotions.
"Visual information is transferred from the camera into advanced vibrating
patterns displayed on the skin. The vibrators are sequentially activated to
provide dynamic information about what kind of emotion a person is
expressing and the intensity of the emotion," he explains.
      The first step for a user is to learn the patterns of different
facial expressions by displaying the emotions in front of a camera that
translates the emotions into vibrational patterns. In this learning phase
the visually impaired person [has] a tactile display mounted on the back of
a chair. When interacting with other people, a sling on the forearm can be
used instead.
      The main research focus has been to characterize different emotions
and to find a way to present them by means of advanced biomedical
engineering and computer vision technologies. The project was funded by the
Swedish Research Council.
      The research group's spin-off company Videoakt AB has been granted a
patent for the technology, which soon will be available as a product on the
open market. Tactile feedback is also interesting in other areas as a
future communication tool for seeing people as well. "We have successfully
demonstrated how the technology can be implemented on mobile phones for
tactile rendering of live football games and human emotion information
through vibrations. This is an interesting way to enhance the experience of
mobile users," explains Shafiq ur Rhman.
                                 ----------
                         Consider a Charitable Gift

Making a charitable gift can be one of the most satisfying experiences in
life. Each year millions of people contribute their time, talent, and
treasure to charitable organizations. When you plan for a gift to the
National Federation of the Blind, you are not just making a donation; you
are leaving a legacy that insures a future for blind people throughout the
country. Special giving programs are available through the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB).

Points to Consider When Making a Gift to the
National Federation of the Blind
      .  Will my gift serve to advance the mission of the NFB?
      .  Am I giving the most appropriate asset?
      .  Have I selected the best way to make my gift?
      .  Have I considered the tax consequences of my gift?
      .  Have I sought counsel from a competent advisor?
      .  Have I talked to the NFB planned giving officer about my gift?

Benefits of Making a Gift to the NFB
      .  Helping the NFB fulfill its mission
      .  Receiving income tax savings through a charitable deduction
      .  Making capital gain tax savings on contribution of some
appreciated gifts
      .  Providing retained payments for the life of a donor or other
beneficiaries
      .  Eliminating federal estate tax in certain situations
      .  Reducing estate settlement cost

Your Gift Will Help Us
      .  Make the study of science and math a real possibility for blind
children
      .  Provide hope for seniors losing vision
      .  Promote state and chapter programs and provide information that
will
              educate blind people
      .  Advance technology helpful to the blind
      .  Create a state-of-the-art library on blindness
      .  Train and inspire professionals working with the blind
      .  Provide critical information to parents of blind children
      .  Mentor blind people trying to find jobs

Your gift makes you a part of the NFB dream!

                                 ----------

        San Francisco Organization Makes More Than One Million Books
                     Available Online to Blind, Dyslexic
                              by Brooke Donald
                                 **********
      From the Editor: Earlier this year we described the emerging
partnership between the Internet Archive and the National Federation of the
Blind and introduced Monitor readers to the organization's services. On May
6, 2010, the San Francisco Examiner ran a story about the Internet
Archive's announcement that it has now posted one million books in DAISY
format on its Website, addressing the interests of the blind and other
print-disabled readers especially. Some in the blindness field have
countered this claim with cynicism, raising questions about whether the
Internet Archive has in fact posted a million titles and, more important,
whether they are fully honoring the provisions of America's liberal special
formats copyright law. While these questions remain unanswered, Monitor
readers should certainly know of this new resource and use it to the extent
that it is available. Our access to information is sufficiently limited
that any new resource that broadens our exposure is inherently valuable.
Here is the article:
                                 **********
      Even as audio versions of best-sellers fill store shelves and new
technology fuels the popularity of digitized books, the number of titles
accessible to people who are blind or dyslexic is minuscule. A new service
being announced Thursday by the nonprofit Internet Archive in San Francisco
is trying to change that. The group has hired hundreds of people to scan
thousands of books into its digital database-more than doubling the titles
available to people who aren't able to read a hard copy.
      Brewster Kahle, the organization's founder, says the project will
initially make one million books available to the visually impaired, using
money from foundations, libraries, corporations, and the government. He's
hoping a subsequent book drive will add even more titles to the collection.
"We'll offer current novels, educational books, anything. If somebody then
donates a book to the archive, we can digitize it and add it to the
collection," he said.
      The problems with many of the digitized books sold commercially are
that they're expensive, they're often abridged, and they don't come in a
format that is easily accessed by the visually impaired. The collections
are also limited to the most popular titles published within the past
several years. The Internet Archive is scanning a variety of books in many
languages so they can be read by the software and devices blind people use
to convert written pages into speech. The organization has twenty scanning
centers in five countries, including one in the Library of Congress.
"Publishers mostly concentrate on their newest, profitable books. We are
working to get all books online," Kahle said.
      Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, says
getting access to books has been a big challenge for blind people. "Now,
for the first time, we're going to have access to an enormous quantity," he
said. Maurer, who is blind, said that, when he was in college, he hired
people to read books to him because the Braille and audio libraries were so
limited. "That has been the way most students have gotten through school,"
he said. "This kind of initiative by the Internet Archive will change that
for many people." Only about 5 percent of published books are available in
a digital form that's accessible to the visually impaired, Maurer said, and
there are even fewer books produced in Braille.
      Ben Foss, a San Francisco man with dyslexia, says having so many more
books available is liberating. He compares it to a million more ramps being
added throughout a city for a person who uses a wheelchair. "For me it's
about access. They have provided flexibility and freedom to get books in a
format that I use every day," said Foss, thirty-six, who is the director of
access technology in the digital health group at Intel Corp.
      The digitized books scanned by the Internet Archive will be available
for free to visually impaired people through the organization's Website.
The organization does not run into copyright concerns because the law
allows libraries to make books available to people with disabilities, Kahle
said.
      Jessie Lorenz, an associate director at the Independent Living
Resource Center, San Francisco, who has been blind since birth, said it has
been hard to find controversial or edgy titles in a format she can use, and
choices are often dictated by institutions or service groups who have
selected certain books for scanning. "For individuals living with print-
related disabilities, this is groundbreaking," she said. "This project will
enable people like me to choose what we read." Lorenz, thirty-one, has
already decided what she wants: Howard Stern's autobiography, Private
Parts, Andrew Weil's The Natural Mind, and, perhaps most important, her
grandmother's cookbook.
                                 ----------
                       [PHOTO CAPTION: Hannah Lindner]
                                  Fall Risk
                              by Hannah Lindner
                                ************
      From the Editor: Hannah Lindner is a college student at Union College
in Lincoln, Nebraska. She has already learned that disagreeable experiences
can sometimes strengthen and empower us. They can also teach us to speak up
and advocate for ourselves and our right to equal treatment. Of almost
equal importance, they can provide a powerful opportunity to teach others
about the abilities of blind people. Here is her story:
                                ************
      For the most part the day had been typical. It was a Monday in the
middle of the semester. I had gone to classes, including one in which I had
taken a mid-term. I worked and squeezed in a little homework. I had barely
enough time to attend to my personal needs. The only new addition to my
routine was to have a dorm nurse come to my room to check my blood sugar
once or twice a day because my levels had suddenly begun to read high and I
did not yet have a talking glucometer. I had begun taking an oral
medication, and I needed to know how well it was working.
      That night, however, things went crazy. It was around 9:00 as I was
finishing homework and getting ready for bed, anticipating spending eight
hours at my internship the next day. That was the time the dorm nurse could
visit, and, being at least two hours after a meal, it was an appropriate
time to check my blood sugar. The procedure was typical until the student
nurse announced 538 as the level displayed on the meter screen. She was
worried that I might have to go to the hospital for insulin to bring the
level down. I called my mother, who is also a nurse, and told her the
situation. She said that I should go to the hospital because the high level
could begin to damage my internal organs, particularly my transplanted
kidney. By this time I could hear the deans and residential staff gathering
in the lounge across the hall for their weekly meeting, so I knew I
couldn't reach anyone on the on-duty line. I called the desk and attempted
to explain the situation to the worker, but I was quite anxious by this
time, and all I could really get out was that my blood sugar was extremely
high and that I had to go to the hospital. A moment later both deans came
to my door wondering what was going on. As I was telling them what I had
told the desk worker and how high my blood sugar was, the dorm nurse Nicole
came back. They discussed who could drive me to the hospital, and they
decided that Nicole would drive me. We drove to Brian East emergency room,
which is where my adventure began.
      After waiting a few minutes, Nicole and I went back to the triage
area, where I answered the usual questions about myself and my health. Of
course, among the topics of interest to the triage staffer was my blindness-
-what had caused it and how long I had been blind. After I answered these
questions, she commented that my blindness made me more likely to be a fall
risk and adorned my left wrist with a yellow band reading "FALL RISK." As
the band was being put on, I said that I didn't believe that blindness made
me or anyone else more of a fall risk. I was even more taken aback when my
words were met only by the statement that I could hit things in the hall.
This statement was only an excuse; she hadn't really acknowledged my words
or point of view. I thought that's what the cane in my hand is for, but the
discussion had ended. Nicole and I were already being led into the room
where I would stay until I was either admitted or considered stable enough
to return home. I was given a gown and instructed to change into it. I
began talking to Nicole, trying to decompress from what had just happened.
I was very unhappy and in a heightened state of anxiety, which they said
was caused by my elevated blood sugar level. It created a personality that
I began referring to as "Crazy Hannah."
      "I don't know why people can't just have a little faith!" I said as I
tossed one of my snow boots to the floor in disgust. Nicole tried to calm
me by saying that they were only trying to do what was best and safest. She
assured me that she knew better than to think I was a fall risk, at least
under normal circumstances, but these were not normal circumstances. While
I understood that the staffer might have been well intentioned, the fact
remained that labeling me had not been necessary. Whether or not she had
intended it, she had been blatantly condescending to me. She and Nicole, as
well as anyone else who passed us, could see that I was alert and could
walk just fine, although I did find it helpful to walk with a human guide,
not because of disorientation or instability, but for convenience in an
unfamiliar area. I was in the emergency room, being treated for a serious
condition and being transferred here, there, and everywhere at record
speed.
      After I got into the bed, I desperately tugged at one of my bands
until it fell off. I assumed it was the one that had just been applied and
had caused my indignation. I attribute this action to the state I was in.
Soon afterward one of the many people that were bustling in and out of my
room discovered the fallen band. I was informed that my medicine allergy
band had fallen off, and the staff member replaced it. "Drat," I thought.
"Wrong one." After that nurses were busy drawing blood, trying to start an
IV, treating my blood sugar level, and locating the doctor. In short, they
decided to admit me for the night.
      By this time it was almost 11:00, and Nicole had to leave because she
had a big test in the morning. Since I had asked if possible for someone to
be with me in that crazy emergency room, she called the deans to see if one
of them could come until I got settled in a patient room. Shortly after
Nicole left, Mrs. Merth, the head dean of women, came. I told her about
being labeled a fall risk, and she also tried to encourage and comfort me.
Although I was still exasperated, her presence was calming.
      About midnight I was moved into a room on the orthopedic unit because
the hospital was busy and there was nowhere else to put me. In the
admission process we told the nurse about the fall-risk band, and she said
that almost everyone on that unit was declared a fall risk. Then she added,
to my great relief, comfort and encouragement, that the nurses use their
own judgment about whether a patient is actually at risk of falling. When
we finished the admission process, I told Mrs. Merth that she could go get
some sleep and that I would try to do the same.
      Having received at least a liter and a half of fluid in the emergency
room and a much slower but constant drip in my room, I kept having to get
myself to the bathroom. Each time I had the nurse help me because the IV
was hooked up and I didn't want to get wound up in the lines and cords. The
nurse observed me walk several times. In the early morning, when she was
getting ready for the day shift to come in, we were talking about my bands
because she had to put another band on me because of one of the medicines I
was taking. My fall risk band came up in the conversation, and the nurse
said she was going to take it off, saying "I don't know where they got
their numbers on that. You move better than 95 percent of the people on
this floor." I explained that the emergency room staff had applied a
stereotype to me as a blind person. When she was ready to remove it, I
handed it to her, having slipped it off a moment before after she said I
didn't need it. I asked her to put it with my things, explaining that, when
things like this happened to blind people, we often write stories to inform
others and that having the band in my possession would serve as a reminder--
as if I needed one. When she left that morning, I decided that she had been
very pleasant, fair, and open minded toward me and had willingly learned
something about blind people and the stereotypes that we face.
      That hospital stay lasted three days, but never again was I treated
differently because of my blindness. I did have to affirm my capabilities
to people on a couple of occasions, but they at least gave me the courtesy
of listening to me. I received some education while I was there, including
how to administer insulin. They seemed quite willing to teach me this
technique. Although for the moment I no longer have to administer insulin
because my levels are well controlled on one oral medication, it was
helpful to learn how in case I need to use this knowledge in the future. I
still have my fall risk band, really just as a keepsake now to remind me.
But I will never forget the events of that day and that hospital stay, and
I think of it as an experience I can use to help others.
                                 ----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: In this woodcut two blind students of the Royal Institute
for Blind Youth, the Parisian school with which Louis Braille was
associated, are depicted operating a printing press. Printing was one of
the professions blind people in France were often trained in during the
early nineteenth century.]
               Featured Book from the Jacobus tenBroek Library
                                by Ed Morman
   A Handbook for the Blind and Their Friends by Winifred Holt. New York,
                                Dutton, 1922
                                 **********
      From the Editor: With some regularity we spotlight books in the
tenBroek Library. Here is librarian Ed Morman's description of a recent
acquisition:
                                 **********
      Winifred Holt (1870-1945, also known by her married name Winifred
Holt Mather), has been called the First Lady of the Lighthouse. As the
founder of an agency and someone who had little or no contact with the
organized blind, she might be expected to have had a patronizing attitude
toward blind people. This book demonstrates that such condescension can
coexist in a person of good will with an appreciation of the capabilities
of blind people and recognition of the diversity of the blind population.
      Although calling itself a handbook for the blind as well as their
friends, the book's preface reveals otherwise, when Holt explains why she
extracted its contents from her longer work, The Light Which Cannot Fail:
True Stories of Heroic Blind Men and Women.
      This little handbook, which was originally included with the stories,
has been separated from them in the hope that in its more concrete form it
would be a more useful and accessible companion to Tiphlophiles, which, I
am informed, means lovers of the blind. "As far as the blind themselves, if
there is anything that any blind man, woman, or child wants to know about
the blind, if they ask questions at Light House No. 1 . . .[in] New York .
 . and do not get a satisfactory answer, I wish they would give me a
chance . . . to do my best to supplement my sins of omission."
      Holt should not be judged harshly. She was the daughter of the
publisher, Henry Holt, and a skilled sculptor who could have lived off an
inheritance and devoted herself to art. In no way was she a worker with the
blind whose job and income depended on the pretense of being more expert
than the blind themselves.
      In the days before the NFB--when talented blind people like Newel
Perry were struggling for recognition but failing to achieve success in
their chosen fields--sighted philanthropists like Winifred Holt did
accomplish some good for the blind. Whatever her motivation, she encouraged
the use of Braille, refused to let blindness be an excuse for
unsatisfactory work, urged blind people to engage in sports and athletics,
and regarded generalizations about the blind as a sign of ignorance.
      Surprisingly, neither the NLS catalog nor the Louis database of the
American Printing House has an entry for accessible copies of the Handbook
(or the larger work from which it was taken). However, since the copyright
on this book has expired, the tenBroek Library will be able to include it
in our digitization program. We hope to have a link to it from the library
catalog within a year. In the meantime the NLS does have Holt's biography
in Braille. Written by her sister, Edith Holt Bloodgood, and her widower,
Rufus Graves Mather, First Lady of the Lighthouse is a good place to learn
more about this friend of the blind.
                                 ----------
[GRAPHIC/DESCRIPTION: A formal place setting, complete with placecard
bearing the Whozit logo and the words, "Miss Whozit."]
                               Ask Miss Whozit
                                 **********
      From Barbara Pierce: In recent months Miss Whozit has answered reader
questions about etiquette and good manners, particularly as they involve
blindness. If you would like to pose a question to Miss Whozit, you can
send it to the attention of Barbara Pierce, 200 East Wells Street at
Jernigan Place, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, or email me at
<bpierce@nfb.org>. I will pass the questions along. Letters may be edited
for space and clarity. Here are the most recent letters Miss Whozit has
received:
                                 **********
Dear Miss Whozit,
      I am a local chapter president, and several of my members have had
difficulty with staff attitudes in doctors' offices. I realize that these
are busy places and that the staff doesn't necessarily have much time to
help blind patients fill out forms. I have learned to notify offices about
my blindness in advance. Some offices send me the forms ahead of time, and
one office asked me to pick up the form before my appointment so that I
could bring the completed form with me. Luckily I was able to get to the
office ahead of time and pick up the form. But the response most of us get
when we describe our inability to complete paperwork independently is that
we should bring someone with us to fill out the forms. First of all, we are
not children and do not need someone to accompany us to doctors'
appointments, etc. Also such information is personal. I can easily imagine
that a blind person might find an acquaintance willing to fill in the form
but to whom he or she would not feel comfortable disclosing intimate health
details. Moreover I think most of us would feel self-conscious providing
such answers out loud in a busy waiting room. The other problem I have
found in bringing someone with me to a doctor's office is that the staff
tend to address the sighted person instead of me, which is infuriating.
      My husband experienced a related problem recently when my niece took
him to a medical lab for blood work and then left him there to go to work.
The people at the blood center told him that, if he didn't have someone
with him at all times, he would have to come back another time with a
sighted minder. He and I both believe that this treatment was insulting and
discriminatory. My husband was able to find someone to stay with him until
they finished the blood work, but the experience was demeaning.
      Could you write something that people could take to doctors' offices
and blood centers that would explain how blind people should be treated? I
know that we have the courtesy rules of blindness, but these situations are
a little different.
                                 **********
Unwilling to Take it Anymore
                                 **********
Gentle Reader,
      The Americans with Disabilities Act became law in part to protect us
from such treatment. A doctor's office and a lab that serves members of the
public who require its services are places of public accommodation, and
those who run them must be prepared to provide reasonable accommodation to
those who need it. Providing forms to a patient by mail ahead of time seems
a reasonable way of solving the problem. Assisting the patient to fill out
the paperwork is equally effective. These offices are usually busy places,
and it is not surprising that they are not eager to make a staff member
available to do the paperwork, so that is a very good reason for patients'
being considerate enough to request the forms beforehand in order to
complete them at home. If this is not possible because of an emergency or
some other circumstance that prevents the blind patient from completing the
paperwork early, the law is clear that the office staff must accommodate
the patient by assisting in the completion of the forms since they are not
available in an accessible format.
      If the patient is an adult, it is inappropriate for any office to
require the presence of another person unless all patients in the same
medical situation are required to be accompanied by a responsible adult who
can take notes and drive the patient home after the procedure.
      Your city or state ADA compliance office should be able to back you
up if necessary. But Miss Whozit suggests that you be as considerate as you
can by planning ahead and then courteously stand on your rights when
necessary. It will be news to most doctors' receptionists that the law
requires them to provide accommodations to disabled patients. If you are
calm and clear while explaining this fact of life, reasonable medical
personnel will respond appropriately.

                                ************
Dear Miss Whozit,
      I have flown many times, both within the United States and abroad. I
always ask for help from airline personnel or ground employees. If I get
help from a skycap, I always tip, which I know is appropriate.
      But I have read in the Monitor Federationists' accounts of their
experiences in airports, and they say or at least imply that they get
through a large, busy airport with absolutely no assistance. As a seasoned
traveler and one whose mobility is fairly good, I find this unbelievable.
Also they sometimes imply that it is shameful for a true Federationist to
ask for assistance in an airport.
      In a couple of months I will make another flight, and I have to
transfer in Detroit, an airport I have only visited once, some twenty-five
years ago. It seems absurd to me to think that I could find my way around
this airport alone. After all, take away all the signs and monitors, and
most sighted travelers would also be lost. That is why the signs are
posted. Is it more respectable to ask other sighted travelers to help when
they may be busy and disinclined to do so than it is to ask for help from
those whose job is to assist passengers?
      I also see nothing wrong with preboarding, and I do it all the time.
I base my decision on this: I have never seen a person turned away when
trying to preboard, no matter what the reason, so I figure why not do it
and get a head start on the rush? Yet often in the Monitor needing or
accepting such help is characterized as somehow shameful. I agree that a
person should not be forced to accept unwanted help, but how is it possible
for a totally blind person to traverse an unfamiliar airport without help,
and from whom is necessary assistance best sought?
                                ************
Frustrated Traveler
                                ************
Dear Frustrated Traveler,
      Miss Whozit is wondering whether you and she have been reading the
same publication. A quick search of airline stories in the Braille Monitor
has turned up no instances when readers have been urged to refuse
assistance that they believe they need. This is a very personal assessment
shaped by individual skill, experience, and confidence. Even the same
passenger may make different decisions about soliciting help depending on
the circumstances. With time to kill and little to carry, one might well
decide to make enquiries along the way to the gate. Another time the same
passenger racing to catch a flight or having a long way to go with lots of
luggage might be very happy to grab a cart or the help of a skycap.
      Miss Whozit suspects that you are feeling threatened by other blind
people who portray themselves as preferring to travel independently. She
herself prefers independent travel, though sometimes she admits that it is
easier to ask for help she may need or to accept assistance than fight off
a would-be Galahad.
      You ask how a totally blind person can negotiate an airport
independently. As usual the answer hinges on one's definition of the word
"independence." We who get where we are going without paying someone to
take us there make enquiries along the way: what gate is this? Is the
terminal in that direction? Do you see a sign for ground transportation?
Moreover, when the opportunity arises, it is perfectly acceptable to walk
along with another passenger who is going your way. In fact Miss Whozit's
experience is that passengers who do not wish to be slowed down by
answering questions just walk past, ignoring a blind person looking
puzzled.
      When the Braille Monitor staff first began discussing flying and
dealing with airline and airport personnel, we were eager to convey to our
readers that they had as much right to behave like adults as anyone else in
the traveling public. We were trying to counteract the general belief that
blind passengers were just so much baggage that some sighted person had to
be responsible for lugging around. The most effective way of modeling this
new form of behavior was to invite blind people who were already insisting
on behaving like adults to write about their experiences so that the more
timid could understand how to insist courteously on making their own
decisions about themselves and how much assistance they wanted or needed.
The intent was to empower people, not to shame them.
      Preboarding is a good case in point. Anyone who is insecure about
boarding in his or her designated place should make arrangements to
preboard. Choosing to preboard simply because it gives one a better shot at
the overhead storage smacks of using blindness to get perks that might not
otherwise be available. In this case one might remember the TANSTAAFL
principle-there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. When a person with a
dog or white cane goes to the front of the line, everyone in the gate area
presumes that it is because he or she cannot participate in the standard
boarding. If this is the case, accepting the nebulous pity for the less
fortunate is the price that must be paid for a necessary accommodation.
That price will be paid by any blind passenger who does not gently insist
on taking his or her assigned turn and not jumping the line.
      This point is important. Many blind people choose to preboard
aircraft when there is no assigned seating because they find it time-
consuming to locate empty seats, and the airlines offer preboarding to
those who require a little extra time to find and take their seats.
Passengers are asked to load as quickly as possible, and it seems
responsible to these blind people to preboard so that they do not
inconvenience other passengers. But, when they have assigned seats, they
stand up and move with the crowd toward the loading area, trusting that
other passengers will direct them to the end of the line. They believe that
they are justified in preboarding when that is the most efficient way to
find a seat. They insist on taking their assigned places in line when that
is equally efficient.
      Each of us must make these decisions for ourselves. What is
unfortunate is for sighted companions to urge that preboarding be done so
that they can take advantage of the convenience of early seating while the
blind passenger is identified as the object of pity. By all means make your
decisions about preboarding and traveling through airports based on your
own level of confidence and competence, but be clear about the cost and do
not delude yourself about the price; every decision you make has a cost.
                                ************
Dear Miss Whozit,
      Back in residential school the teachers stressed that we should not
use our blindness as an excuse. Though I think this is generally good
advice, I have sometimes blatantly used my blindness to get what I wanted.
I wonder what you think about the following.
      I am extremely unskilled on the Internet. I do not know how to do
Websites. I don't like this situation, but I haven't found a way to change
it.
      Recently I was talking with a customer service person at a phone
service to which I subscribe--and which I pay for. I wanted her to make an
adjustment in my account, and she told me I had to go to the Website to do
it myself. Frankly, I did not believe her when she said she could not do it
on the phone. I interpreted her statement as "I don't want to do it for you
on the phone." So I told her that I was blind and that I couldn't do things
on the Web. (I didn't bother to explain that some blind people can but that
I cannot.)
      Then she very kindly, if a little condescendingly, did what I had
requested. What made me angry was that she could have done it for me all
along just because I had asked her and because I was a paying customer. I
dragged out the blindness in order to get what I wanted. My alternative
would have been to find a friend (not very available to me) to do this for
me. Am I being an Uncle Tom or just doing what I have to do to make it
through?
                                ************
Not Ashamed
                                ************
Gentle Reader,
      Your actions were not those of an Uncle Tom, but you certainly did
not hesitate to play the pity card, and it did accomplish what you wanted.
Miss Whozit suspects that you are pretty quick to use this card, and there
may be times when you have no choice, but this was certainly not one of
them.
      Even though it sometimes seems that everyone in the world has a
computer and access to the Internet, this is not in fact the case. Customer
service personnel are instructed to insist that callers do what they can
for themselves. This is an economic decision on the part of management. But
the staff have to be prepared to make changes for those customers who do
not have access to the Internet, which in fact is your situation. It would
not have been much of a stretch for you to have admitted that you did not
have access to the Internet, so how would she suggest that you make the
adjustment to your service? You would not have had to explain that your
lack of access was connected to blindness and not the complete absence of a
computer.
      Remember also that many Websites are still not accessible to people
who use speech programs. A customer service person is unlikely to have any
idea whether the company Website is accessible. Miss Whozit confesses that
she sometimes announces to such folks that the site is not accessible to
speech programs when it may be only that she is not skilled enough to make
the site work properly. Either of these strategies avoids playing the
blindness card.
      The very fact that you raised this question suggests both that you
were afraid of what Miss Whozit's view would be and that you really were a
bit ashamed of your action. Your inability to use the Internet is not at
issue here. Plenty of people have trouble with this relatively new aspect
of our lives, and we are no less worthy or valuable as human beings because
of this deficit in our experience or opportunity. It is simply a fact of
life like hair color or visual acuity. Refusing to seize opportunities that
come your way to learn to use the Internet would be unfortunate, and
unnecessarily using blindness as the explanation for requiring assistance
plays on the public's tendency to presume the helplessness and inferiority
of blind people. Doing so is demeaning to you and demeaning to all of us.
In future Miss Whozit hopes you will try to avoid playing the blindness
card and find a more creative way of solving your problems. After all, we
both know that it was not blindness as such that prevented you from making
the change yourself.
                                ------------
                        NFB / Cardtronics Settlement
                                 **********
      From the Editor:  We have been asked to publish the following
material in accordance with a court order in this case. This information
should be useful to our readers.  Here it is:
                                 **********
                                   Notice
                                 **********
                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


|COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,     |) |                           |
|Plaintiffs,                                |  |                           |
|v.                                         |  |                           |
|CARDTRONICS, INC., et al.,                 |  |                           |
|Defendants.                                |  |Civil Action No.           |
|                                           |  |03-11206-MEL               |
|                                           |  |                           |
|                                           |  |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |
|                                           |) |                           |

               Notice of Proposed Remediation Plan Concerning
               Final Order Relating to Class Action Settlement
     Agreement and Hearing to Be Held on September 15, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
      To All Members of the Nationwide Class Certified by This Court to
Include Blind Patrons of Automated Teller Machines ("ATMs") Owned or
Operated by Either Cardtronics, Inc. or Cardtronics USA, Inc.
(collectively, "Cardtronics")
      On December 4, 2007, this Court granted final approval of a class
action settlement agreement entered into between Plaintiffs, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the National Federation of the Blind
("NFB"), and several individual blind persons, and Defendants, Cardtronics,
Inc. and Cardtronics, LP (now Cardtronics USA, Inc.) (collectively
"Cardtronics") concerning, among other things, the accessibility of ATMs
owned or operated by Cardtronics to blind patrons under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Massachusetts state laws.
      Due to Cardtronics' inability to meet a number of important
requirements of this court's final order of December 4, 2007, the parties
have reached agreement on a proposed remediation plan, subject to approval
by this court, that requires Cardtronics to meet all of their prior
obligations with extensions of time to do so, plus additional obligations
intended to ensure that the members of the class enjoy the benefits set
forth in the original settlement agreement and final court order.
 Cardtronics has agreed to a remediation plan that includes, among other
actions, ensuring that, with the exception of Cardtronics-owned ATMs
located in 7-Eleven stores, all ATMs owned by Cardtronics will offer voice
guidance through a standard headphone jack located on the face of the ATM
by no later than December 31, 2010; Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-
Eleven stores will offer voice guidance through a standard headphone jack
located on the face of the ATM by no later than March 31, 2011, and that by
March 31, 2011, at least ninety percent (90%) of all transactions at
covered ATMs shall occur on ATMs that are voice guided or otherwise
accessible to blind people. Cardtronics has agreed to develop improved
voice-guided scripts for all Cardtronics-owned ATMs to ensure that blind
customers can easily access all ATM functions. Cardtronics has also agreed
to institute an inspection program intended to ensure that voice-guided
ATMs remain operational for blind customers. A full copy of the proposed
remediation plan is available on the NFB's Website: <www.nfb.org> and on
the Cardtronics' Website:
<www.cardtronics.net/news/nfb_remediationplan.asp>. The locations of the
existing ATMs covered by the final order and by the proposed remediation
plan, with designation of voice-guidance status, can be obtained through
Cardtronics' ATM locator feature, available at
<www.cardtronics.net/about/atmlocator.asp>.
      As part of the proposed remediation plan and subject to Court
approval, Cardtronics has agreed to pay the amount of $145,000 in
attorneys' fees to the attorneys representing the class. These amounts will
not detract from Cardtronics's duties to provide accessible ATMs to the
class. The Court will conduct a hearing on the motion of class counsel for
their attorneys' fees at the date and time set forth in the following
paragraph. Cardtronics has also agreed to pay an additional $60,000 to the
NFB for testing that the NFB will conduct to ensure compliance with the
remediation plan requirements.
      You are hereby notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court dated May 18, 2010, and as
thereafter amended that a final approval hearing will be held on September
15, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., before that Court in the United States Courthouse,
One Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. The purpose of this final
approval hearing is to determine whether the proposed remediation plan
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate and
whether the application for award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement for
expenses should be approved.
      Class members who wish to object to the proposed settlement must
provide notice of and explanation of their objection in writing to the
Court at the address above, with copies to counsel at the addresses
provided below, no later than Monday, August 30, 2010. Only class members
filing timely objections may request to present their objections at the
final approval hearing.
                                 **********
                 Office of the Massachusetts Attorney
                     General
                 Attn: Maura Healey, Esq.
                 100 Cambridge Street
                 11th floor
                 Boston, MA 02108
                                 **********
                 Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
                 Attn: Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum, Esq.
                 120 E. Baltimore Street
                 Suite 1700
                 Baltimore, MD 21202

                 Joseph Kociubes, Esq.
                 Bingham McCutchen, LLP
                 150 Federal Street
                 Boston, MA 02110-1726

      For further information, visit <www.cardtronics.net/news/> or contact
counsel for the plaintiffs:
                                 **********
                 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
                 Office of Attorney General
                 Disability Rights Project
                 (617) 727-2200
                 <www.mass.gov/ago>
                                 **********
                       or
                                 **********
                 Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
                 (410) 962-1030
                 <www.browngold.com >
                                 **********
      Except as instructed in the notice, please do not contact the court.
                                 **********
Dated:      May 18, 2010                By Order of the
                             United States District Court
                             For the District of Massachusetts
                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 **********
                          Proposed Remediation Plan
                                 **********
      The proposed remediation plan provides as follows:
      (1) All Cardtronics-owned ATMs in Massachusetts will be voice guided
no later than June 30, 2010.
      (2) By December 31, 2010, at least ninety percent (90%) of all
transactions at covered ATMs occurring within the borders of Massachusetts
will occur on ATMs that are voice guided.    (3) All Cardtronics-owned ATMs
nationally will be voice guided no later than December 31, 2010, with the
exception of Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven stores, which will
be voice guided no later than March 31, 2011.
      (4) By March 31, 2011, at least ninety percent (90%) of all
transactions at covered ATMs nationally will occur on ATMs that are voice
guided.
      (5) With the assistance of the NFB, Cardtronics has developed enhanced
scripts for the great majority of the ATMs it owns. With the exception of
Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven stores, on or before December
31, 2010, Cardtronics will install enhanced scripts on all Cardtronics-
owned ATMs, except where it is not technologically feasible to do so, in
which cases, on or before December 31, 2010, Cardtronics shall either (i)
replace such ATMs with ATMs on which an enhanced script can and will be
installed, or (ii) remove such ATMs from the Cardtronics-owned fleet.
Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven stores will be voice guided no
later than March 31, 2011. Any script on any Cardtronics-owned ATM,
including the enhanced scripts, shall meet the requirements set forth in
the definition of "voice guided" and "voice-guidance" set forth in the
final order[2] and as supplemented in paragraph six of this order.
      (6) With the exception of Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven
stores, by December 31, 2010, all Cardtronics-owned voice-guided ATMs and
those merchant-owned, voice-guided ATMs that Cardtronics designates as
making up a portion of the ninety percent (90%) transaction requirements of
paragraphs two and four above, will have tactilely discernible controls,
that is, operating mechanisms used in conjunction with speech output that
can be located and operated by feel. When a numeric keypad is part of the
tactilely discernible controls, all function keys will be mapped to the
numeric keypad and, except for those remaining Wincor ATMs installed in
Target stores prior to June 2007, the numeric keypad will have an "echo"
effect such that the user's numeric entries (other than the entry of a
personal identification number) are repeated in voice form. All tactilely
discernible controls will otherwise comply with applicable regulations. All
Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven stores will meet these
requirements no later than March 31, 2011.
      (7) With the exception of Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven
stores, by December 31, 2010, all Cardtronics-owned ATMs will have
appropriate signage as identified in the Final Order Ex. 1.[3] All
Cardtronics-owned ATMs located in 7-Eleven stores will meet these
requirements no later than March 31, 2011. By December 31, 2010,
Cardtronics will send such signage to each of its merchant-owned customers
that operate a voice-guided ATM (with the exception of those customers for
whom Cardtronics physically placed Braille signage on each of the
customer's voice-guided ATMs after April 9, 2007) requesting that those
customers install such signage on their voice-guided ATMs. Cardtronics will
include a letter from the NFB describing the importance of such signage
with its request. On or before February 1, 2011, Cardtronics will provide
the NFB with the approximate date on which it placed signage on each of the
merchant-owned voice-guided ATMs or sent the appropriate signage by mail.
      (8) By December 31, 2012, Cardtronics will cause to have inspected all
Cardtronics-owned, non-branded ATMs to ensure that the voice-guided
features of these ATMs are in working condition. Approximately 10,000 of
these inspections shall take place in calendar years 2010 and 2011, with
the balance taking place in calendar year 2012. To the extent Cardtronics
can demonstrate to class counsel that within the first two years of
conducting such inspections the voice-guided features are in compliance
with the definition of voice guidance, the parties shall meet to discuss
the results of these inspections and may agree in writing that Cardtronics
shall cause to have inspected a minimum of 1,000 Cardtronics-owned, non-
branded ATMs each year for the remainder of the term of the agreement.
These inspections will be documented in a manner showing that the person
conducting the inspection used headphones to listen to the voice script on
the ATM. Similarly, in the course of conducting its routine inspections of
Cardtronics-owned, branded ATMs, such inspections shall be documented in a
manner showing that the person conducting the inspection used headphones to
listen to the voice script on the ATM. On a monthly basis Cardtronics shall
report the results of all inspections required by this paragraph to class
counsel.
      (9) In addition to the reporting requirements identified in the Final
Order,[4] Cardtronics will report monthly between June 1, 2010, and
December 31, 2011. For the period between June 1, 2010, and December 31,
2011, Cardtronics will add to the information it is currently reporting for
each Cardtronics-owned ATM whether the enhanced script has been installed
on the ATM, as well as the month and year of such installation. No later
than October 31, 2010, for each Cardtronics-owned ATM on which it is not
technologically feasible to install an enhanced script, Cardtronics will
indicate whether it will replace such ATM with a voice-guided ATM or remove
the ATM from the fleet.
      (10) Cardtronics will keep its ATM locator on its Website up to date
as to whether a covered ATM is equipped with voice guidance.
      (11) Notice of the proposed remediation plan will be provided to the
class in the manner described below.
      (12) In addition to the testing costs set forth in Final Order Ex. 1,
Cardtronics will pay $60,000 to the NFB to be used for interim testing and
other compliance monitoring by the NFB taking place in 2010 and the first
quarter of 2011. The NFB shall provide Cardtronics with invoices as testing
is completed, to be payable by Cardtronics within 30 days of receipt of
each invoice.
      (13) Cardtronics will pay the NFB $145,000 for the reasonable fees and
costs incurred by the NFB as a result of Cardtronics's failure to comply
with the final order. This amount includes attorneys' fees and testing
costs that the NFB incurred due to the failure of Cardtronics to comply
with the final order and shall be paid in two equal installments of
$72,500, one upon the effective date of this Court's final approval of the
proposed remediation plan and the second sixty days thereafter.
      (14) The requirements set forth in Final Order Ex. 1 shall remain in
effect, in whole or in part, for eight years from the date of this Court's
final approval of the proposed remediation plan. The parties may agree in
writing to extend the requirements of Final Order Ex. 1 further or the
Court may so order in connection with paragraph 13.3. Notwithstanding any
expiration of Final Order Ex. 1, paragraphs six, seven and thirteen of
Final Order Ex. 1 shall continue to remain in effect in perpetuity.
      (15) To the extent that the requirements set forth herein are
inconsistent with any provision of Final Order Ex. 1, this order controls.
All other terms and requirements of the final order, including Final Order
Ex. 1, will remain in full force and effect.
                                 **********
                          Final Order and Judgment
                                 **********
                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                                ************
|COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et   |                                    |
|al.,                                |                                    |
|                                    |                                    |
|Plaintiffs                          |                                    |
|                                    |CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-11206-MEL       |
|v.                                  |                                    |
|                                    |                                    |
|E*TRADE ACCESS, INC., et al.,       |                                    |
|                                    |                                    |
|Defendants                          |                                    |


                                ************
                          FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

      Plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, National Federation of the
Blind, Inc. ("NFB"), Adrienne Asch, Jennifer Bose, Norma Crosby, Dwight
Sayer, Robert Crowley, Jr., Raymond Wayne, Terri Uttermohlen, and Bryan
Bashin, seek final approval of the class action settlement that was
approved preliminarily by this court on July 26, 2007. See Memorandum and
Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and for Fairness Hearing ("Preliminary Approval Order").
Specifically, plaintiffs have moved the court for an order: (1) finding
that the class action settlement agreement between plaintiffs and
defendants, Cardtronics, LP, and Cardtronics, Inc. (collectively
"Cardtronics"), is a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of all of
the claims of the class against defendants, overruling the single objection
to the proposed settlement and finding that each class member shall be
bound by the settlement agreement, including its release; (2) finding that
the notice published to the class satisfies the requirements of due process
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (3) approving an award of attorneys' fees and costs
by defendants to plaintiff, NFB, in the amount of $900,000, as agreed to by
the parties; (4) dismissing this lawsuit on the merits and with prejudice
as to all claims in the lawsuit against all defendants; (5) attaching and
incorporating by reference the terms of the settlement agreement; and (6)
retaining jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation,
administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the
Settlement Agreement.
   I.       Background
      A.    Plaintiffs' Claims
      Cardtronics currently owns and/or operates at least 23,300 ATMs
throughout the United States, including approximately 15,000 ATMs formerly
owned and/or operated by Defendant E*TRADE Access, Inc. ("Access").[5]
Approximately half of these ATMs are owned by independent merchants who are
customers of Cardtronics ("Merchant-Owned ATMs"). This litigation concerns
plaintiffs' request that Cardtronics's fleet of ATMs be made accessible to
and independently useable by blind people through the use of voice-guidance
technology.
      Some of the ATMs in the Cardtronics fleet already have voice
guidance. Those ATMs that are not currently voice guided vary in their
capacity to be made voice guided. Many newer machines have the capacity to
be upgraded to provide voice guidance through a straightforward retrofit
process ("Upgradeable ATMs"). Other, older machines are not able to be
upgraded and must be replaced completely in order to make voice guidance
available.
      Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint
("Fourth Amended Complaint") alleges that Cardtronics has failed to make
all of the ATMs it owns and/or operates accessible to blind individuals in
violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  12181 et seq., and Section
4.34.5 of the Department of Justice Standards for Accessible Design, 28
C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A ("Standards") (requiring that ATMs be "accessible to
and independently useable by persons with vision impairments"). Title III
is enforceable through a private right of action for injunctive relief, and
prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees. See 42 U.S.C. 
12188(a)(1), (2) and 12205. Plaintiffs have also alleged violations of the
Massachusetts Public Accommodations Act ("MPAA"), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272,
 92A and 98, and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act ("MERA"), Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 93,  103.
      Although numerous procedural and substantive disputes have arisen
throughout this litigation, the case turns primarily on the vigorously
contested issues of whether defendants' ATMs are in violation of the
standards and, if they are, whether plaintiffs are entitled to an
injunction that would require Cardtronics to install voice guidance
capabilities on all ATMs it owns and/or operates, including merchant-owned
ATMs. The lawsuit also includes claims against defendant E*TRADE Bank, Inc.
concerning its banking policies applicable to consumers' use of the
Cardtronics ATMs. These claims are derivative of the claims addressing the
accessibility of the Cardtronics ATMs.
      B.    Pre-Filing Settlement Negotiations
      On June 9, 2003, after lengthy negotiations, the Commonwealth and the
NFB entered into a partial settlement agreement ("PSA") with defendants
Access and E*TRADE Bank, Inc. (collectively "E*TRADE"), pursuant to which
Access agreed to equip the ATMs it owned with voice guidance over a period
of two and one-half years. The parties were not able to reach agreement
with respect to merchant-owned ATMs.
      C.    Litigation
      On June 23, 2003, the Commonwealth and the NFB, along with several
individual blind people and the NFB's Massachusetts affiliate, filed the
present suit against E*TRADE. From its inception this litigation has been
hard fought. As fully detailed in the preliminary approval order, this
complex case involved numerous dispositive motions, voluminous document
discovery, and several significant discovery-related motions.
  II.       Summary of the Settlement
      After an all-day mediation on April 9, 2007, and following further
negotiations over the course of more than two months, the parties executed
the settlement agreement on June 21, 2007.
      In summary the settlement requires:
 .    All Cardtronics-Owned ATMs will be voice guided by the end of this
   year, with two exceptions: a set of approximately 1,600 machines that
   already have voice guidance, but do not have, as otherwise required by
   the settlement agreement, audible verification of all of the inputs by
   the ATM user; and a set of no more than 177 machines will be voice guided
   by mid-2008. (Settlement Agreement,  3.1.)
 .    As of April 9, 2007, and going forward, Cardtronics will only install
   Cardtronics-owned ATMs that are voice guided. (Settlement Agreement, 
   3.1)
 .    As of April 9, 2007, and going forward, Cardtronics will only sell or
   make available to merchants ATMs that are voice guided. (Settlement
   Agreement,  3.2.1.)
 .    Cardtronics will identify the smallest subset of merchant-owned ATMs
   without voice guidance that collectively account for 80% of transactions
   at merchant-owned ATMs ("High-Volume Merchants") and will, within ninety
   (90) days of approval, offer those merchants that have upgradeable ATMs
   the opportunity to upgrade to add voice guidance at no cost and will
   offer those merchants whose machines are not upgradeable the opportunity
   to purchase a voice-guided machine at Cardtronics's wholesale cost.
   (Settlement Agreement,  3.2.2.)
 .    Regardless of the outcome of this marketing plan, Cardtronics will
   ensure that, by July 1, 2010, at least ninety (90) percent of all
   transactions on the ATMs covered by the settlement occur on voice-guided
   ATMs. (Settlement Agreement,  3.3.)
 .    After July 1, 2010, Cardtronics will not add or renew any merchant-
   owned ATMs that are not voice guided, so that any remaining ATMs
   constituting less than 10% of transaction volume that are not yet voice
   guided will either become so or be eliminated. (Settlement Agreement, 
   3.3.2.)
 .    Any additional functions that are added to ATMs covered by the
   settlement will be accessible to blind patrons within ninety (90) days
   unless Cardtronics believes doing so would not be technically feasible
   without causing undue burden or delay, in which case the parties are to
   meet and confer to attempt to eliminate the obstructions to adding such
   new functions. (Settlement Agreement,  3.7.)
 .    Cardtronics-owned ATMs acquired after final approval of the settlement
   agreement shall be voice guided within two (2) years; after-acquired
   merchant-owned ATMs that are merchant-owned by high-volume merchants will
   receive the upgrade or replacement offers described above. (Settlement
   Agreement,  3.6.)
 .    Cardtronics will provide Web-based information and signage to assist
   blind patrons in identifying which of its ATMs are voice guided.
   (Settlement Agreement,  4.1, 4.2.)
 .    Cardtronics will report to class counsel throughout the term of the
   settlement agreement concerning the number of voice-guided ATMs and the
   percentage of transactions occurring on such ATMs, and that progress will
   be verified by Cardtronics and monitored by the NFB. (Settlement
   Agreement,  4.4.)
 .    Cardtronics must comply with any future regulatory requirements that
   impose additional requirements, but if regulations require less than the
   settlement agreement, the settlement agreement controls. (Settlement
   Agreement 5.1)
 .    Class members will release claims for injunctive relief and attorneys'
   fees under Title III of the ADA, the MPAA, the MERA, and any other claims
   held by the named plaintiffs to the extent such claims relate to the
   accessibility of ATMs to blind people. Class members also release claims
   for injunctive relief under state law to the extent it incorporates or is
   equivalent to Title III. (Settlement Agreement,  7.1, 7.2.)
 .    Class members (excepting the named plaintiffs) do not release claims
   for damages. (Settlement Agreement,  7.1.3.)
 .    Cardtronics will pay $900,000 in attorneys' fees to the NFB and make a
   contribution of $100,000 to the local consumer aid fund of the
   Massachusetts Attorney General. (Settlement Agreement,  9.1, 9.2.)
      Because the settlement agreement applies to all Cardtronics ATMs--
including former E*TRADE ATMs--it supersedes the earlier PSA among E*TRADE,
the Commonwealth, and the NFB. Although E*TRADE is not a party to the
settlement agreement, that agreement concludes this litigation and calls
for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in this case against all
defendants. (Settlement Agreement,  2.7(c).) The implementation of voice
guidance on the ATMs makes it unnecessary for E*TRADE Bank to change its
policies as sought in the lawsuit.
      In the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the Court should
retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of the interpretation,
administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of this
agreement. (Settlement Agreement,  2.7(d).) In addition, defendants have
withdrawn their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint (Settlement Agreement,  2.1), and the Court has granted
the parties' joint motion for certification of a settlement class, which
includes all persons who are blind patrons of ATMs covered by the
settlement agreement.
III.  Preliminary Approval
      As mentioned, on July 26, 2007, this court granted plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and
scheduled a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement for December 4,
2007. In the preliminary approval order, the court approved the parties'
proposed plan for notifying class members of the settlement, as well as the
form of the notice to be utilized for this purpose ("Notice").
IV.   Notice to the Class
      The Court finds that the notice approved in the Court's preliminary
approval order was made available on Cardtronics's Website from
approximately August 23, 2007, to November 1, 2007, and that a copy of the
notice was also available on the NFB's Website during that same period.
      The Court also finds that a copy of the notice was mailed to a list of
over 900 organizations, including a number composed of, and/or focused on
the issues of, blind people. Of those mailings thirty-six were returned due
to incorrect addresses. The correct addresses were ascertained for eleven
of those returned mailings, and the notice was then sent to those correct
addresses. In addition, the notice was emailed to 1,036 email addresses
relating to the organizations referenced above, with a cover letter
requesting that the recipient post and forward the notice. Of those emails
186 were returned as undeliverable. Fifteen organizations to whom the
notice was emailed notified class counsel that they had forwarded the
notice to other individuals or lists of individuals thought to be class
members. Another ten organizations notified class counsel that they had
posted the notice on their Websites. The NFB sent the notice to over fifty
email lists of blind individuals, including lists of blind lawyers,
students, and travelers. In each of these paper and electronic mailings,
counsel for the class offered to provide Braille versions of the notice
and/or the settlement agreement. Class counsel ultimately received and
honored six requests for Braille documentation.
      The Court finds further that the notice was published in the
August/September edition of the Braille Monitor, which is the publication
of the NFB and is regularly sent to its approximately 50,000 members, among
others. The notice was also published in the September, 2007, edition of
the Braille Forum, as well as in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
and USA Today on August 28, 2007.
      In addition, the Court finds that there has been only one objection to
the proposed settlement. This objection purports to be on behalf of Mason
P. James, of Loveland, Texas, and states only that ??? "[m]e wish to object
to the proposed settlement." See Objection by Mason P. James (Sept. 27,
2007, Paper No. 270).
      DISCUSSION
     I.    The Settlement Agreement is Granted Final Approval.
      A court may approve the settlement of a class action only upon
finding that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(1)(C); see also City P'ship Co. v. Atlantic Acquisition Ltd. P'ship,
100 F.3d 1041, 1043 (1st Cir. 1996) (same). The First Circuit has
recognized a clear policy of encouraging settlements in class action cases
and has stated that "[w]hen sufficient discovery has been provided and the
parties have bargained at arms-length, there is a presumption in favor of
the settlement." City P'ship, 100 F.3d at 1043. In determining the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of a proposed class action
settlement, several courts in this district have looked to the following
factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463
(2d Cir. 1974), overruled on other grounds by Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S.
274 (1989):
     1)  the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation;
        (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of
        the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the
        risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing
        damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the
        trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater
        judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in
        light of the best possible recovery; (9) the range of
        reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in
        light of all the attendant risks of litigation.


      For all of the reasons set forth in the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order, an analysis of these factors strongly supports this court's final
approval of the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. In
addition, this court overrules the single objection to the proposed
settlement, as no reasons were provided for that objection as required by
the notice approved by the Court. Therefore, this court also finds that all
class members are bound by the Settlement Agreement, including its release
provisions.
    II.    Notice to the Class
      Rule 23(e) states that "notice of the proposed dismissal or
compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the
court directs." The notice must satisfy Rule 23, as well as due process
requirements. Cf. Besinga v. United States, 923 F.2d 133, 136-37 (9th Cir.
1991) (requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) are
similar). "'[I]t is the court's duty to ensure that the notice ordered is
reasonably calculated to reach the absent class members." Reppert v. Marvin
Lumber and Cedar Co., 359 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
"When individual notice is infeasible, notice by publication in a newspaper
of national circulation ... is an acceptable substitute." Mirfasihi v.
Fleet Mortgage Corp., 356 F.3d 781, 786 (7th Cir. 2004).
      This court finds that the notice program approved in its preliminary
approval order and now implemented by the parties was the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and satisfied the requirements of due
process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The parties represented that there was no
readily accessible list of the potential class members in this case and
that such a list likely could not be created without enormous effort and
expenditure. Notice here involved a combination of individual mailing-
through the Braille Monitor and Braille Forum to tens of thousands of blind
people-and publication in three newspapers of national circulation: The New
York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Under these circumstances,
individual notice was not required in order to satisfy the requirements of
due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
III.  Attorneys' Fees and Costs
       Class counsel have submitted an unopposed petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and 54(d)(2).
Specifically, class counsel request that the court approve an award of
attorneys' fees and costs by defendants to the NFB in the amount of
$900,000, the amount agreed to by the parties as part of the class action
settlement.
      The ADA provides that courts may award the prevailing party its
"reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses, and costs." 42
U.S.C.  12205. Rules 23(h)(1) and (2) require that notice and an
opportunity to object be provided. In this case the notice sent pursuant to
the preliminary approval order included the amount of the fees and provided
an opportunity to object and no class member has objected to the proposed
fee award.
      In evaluating a fee petition in a case such as this, the Court is to
consider "the reasonableness of the hours spent and the hourly rate
sought." Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., 925 F.2d 518, 529 (1st
Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Spillance, 884 F.2d 642, 647 (1st Cir. 1989)).
After due consideration of the filings of class counsel and the relevant
case law cited therein, this court finds that a fee award in the amount of
$900,000 is well within the bounds of reasonableness under the
circumstances of this case. The time spent by class counsel in litigating
this complex case clearly was justified. In addition, the lodestar amount-
calculated by multiplying these hours by reasonable prevailing rates-is
almost twice the amount agreed upon in the settlement. The Court finds that
the hourly rates charged by class counsel are commensurate with the rates
charged by Boston attorneys of comparable experience in comparable matters
and that the rates actually billed to the NFB were below those rates. In
addition, the award sought is well below the actual amount of fees and
costs paid by the NFB in connection with this litigation. For these reasons
the Court approves the fee award agreed to by the parties as part of the
settlement agreement.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
      1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
lawsuit and over all of the parties to the lawsuit, including the named
plaintiffs, all members of the class, and defendants.
      2. The Court adopts and incorporates the findings of the preliminary
approval order and hereby approves the settlement agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate in all respects. This is especially so in view of
the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation, the
risks of establishing liability, the intensive arm's length negotiations of
experienced counsel, and the reasonableness of the relief obtained,
considering the range of possible outcomes and the attendant risks of
litigation.
      3. The Court overrules the single objection to the settlement and
finds that each class member is bound by the settlement agreement,
including its release.
      4. The Court finds that the notice published to the class satisfies
the requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
      5. The Court finds that the attorneys' fees and costs sought by class
counsel are reasonable and approves an award of fees and costs, in the
amount of $900,000, as agreed to by the parties.
      6. The Court dismisses this lawsuit on the merits and with prejudice
as to all claims in the lawsuit against all defendants.
      7. The Court attaches hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporates into this
final order and judgment the terms of the settlement agreement.
      8. The Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the
interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and
enforcement of the settlement agreement.
                       It is so ordered.

Dated: [Illegible date]

[Illegible signature]
                             U.S.D.J.
                                 **********
397837
                                 ----------
                                   Recipes
                                 **********
      This month's recipes come from the Performing Arts Division.
                                 **********
                             Donna's Corn Bread
                              by Donna W. Hill
                                 **********
      Donna Hill lives in Meshoppen, Pennsylvania. She is a professional
singer and songwriter and is responsible for media relations in the NFB
Performing Arts Division.
                                 **********
Ingredients:
2 1/2 cups corn meal
3 cups flour (half whole wheat, half unbleached)
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
2 tablespoons baking powder
1 tablespoon baking soda
3 eggs, beaten
3 cups buttermilk
1 cup brown sugar, packed
Splash of vanilla extract
1 stick butter
                                 **********
      Method: Whisk together the liquid ingredients and set aside. In a
large bowl combine and blend dry ingredients. Cut the cold stick of butter
into the dry ingredients as follows: cut butter into thirds; cut each third
in half lengthwise; turn it so that lengthwise cut is horizontal and cut in
half lengthwise again. Holding the four sections of each third together,
cut as you would to make pats of butter. This will give you many little
pieces of butter. Fold them into the dry ingredients and knead with fingers
until butter is distributed evenly throughout.
      Combine dry ingredients one cup at a time with liquid, whisking 100
times per cup. Switch from whisk to wooden spoon when batter gets too
thick. Pour batter into well-greased 11-by-15-inch pan (Pyrex for best
results). Bake in preheated 350-degree oven for forty-five minutes. When
done, place on cooling rack for half an hour before cutting. Hint: We
freeze this corn bread in blocks that will serve two. Use twist-tie bags
for each piece, burp out the air, then seal in outer ziplock freezer bag.
                                ------------
                       Blueberry Swirl Breakfast Buns
                              by Donna W. Hill
                                 **********
      This is a whole-grain yeast dough recipe that makes approximately
thirty buns.
                                 **********
Ingredients:
3 cups lukewarm water
2 teaspoons honey, brown sugar, or maple syrup
1 envelope dry yeast
6 cups flour (3 whole wheat and 3 unbleached)
1 teaspoon salt
1 stick butter, softened
1 cup brown sugar or more
1 1/2 cups fresh or thawed frozen blueberries
1/2 cup chopped nuts, optional
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon, optional
Powdered sugar mixed with a little milk as frosting, optional
                                 **********
      Method: If you are using commercially frozen blueberries, defrost a
twelve-ounce bag ahead of time and pour the frozen blueberries into a large
measuring cup. Drain the juice and use it as part of the three cups of
water in which you dissolve the yeast. Combine water, yeast, and honey,
brown sugar, or syrup. Cover bowl. Rinse a clean dish towel in hot water
and wring out before using to cover bowl. Allow mixture to sit for ten
minutes or until the yeast has foamed up. Combine flours and salt and add
this dry mixture 1 cup at a time to the yeast mixture, stirring with a
large wooden spoon about a hundred strokes after each cup. When the dough
shows some elasticity and pulls away from the sides of the bowl, dump it
onto a floured counter or dough board. Allow to rest for 5 minutes. Then
knead the dough into a large, homogenous ball. If the dough is sticky,
flour your hands to add small amounts of flour as needed.
      Return the kneaded dough to the large mixing bowl, cover with a warm
dish towel, and allow to rise in a warm place for an hour. If you have a
gas stove with a pilot light, place the bowl in the oven to facilitate
rising. If you have an electric oven or gas oven with an electric pilot
light, you can achieve the warm rising space by preheating the oven briefly
before turning it off and placing the covered bowl in the center of the
oven. If the dough is rising on the counter, replace the heated dish towel
every fifteen minutes or so with a newly warmed one. When the dough has
doubled in bulk, punch it down once with a floured fist, which removes the
air trapped inside as it rises. Cover again and allow to rise for forty-
five minutes more.
      During this stage, soften a stick of butter either by heating lightly
on the stove or by placing it in a Pyrex measuring cup and putting it in
the microwave for ten-second bursts until butter is soft. You want it to
soften only enough to spread easily. With a rolling pin, roll the dough out
evenly on a floured surface until you have a thirty-by-fourteen-inch
rectangle. As you work, keep checking to be sure you can still lift the
dough. Add a little flour to the board when necessary to keep dough from
sticking to the surface.
      Using a pastry brush, spread the butter evenly over the surface of
the rectangle, using only as much as you need to coat it well. Sprinkle the
surface with brown sugar mixed with the cinnamon, if desired. The amount of
sugar depends on your sweet tooth. One cup works for us. Leaving about an
inch at the edge nearest you and two inches at the far edge, distribute the
blueberries evenly on the surface. If you like nuts, do likewise with a
half cup of them. Roll the dough jellyroll fashion, starting at the edge
closest to you and rolling toward the back of the counter. Be sure to work
your fingers along the entire length so that you roll the dough evenly.
Seal the back edge by pinching the seam closed. Then pat the cylinder into
shape, making sure the diameter is uniform. The longer you make the roll,
the more buns you will have, and the smaller each one will be. Cut the roll
into one-inch wide buns and arrange them cut-side down on two well-greased
cookie sheets. Cover with towels and allow the buns to rise for twenty
minutes. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Bake in the center of the oven one
sheet at a time for twenty to twenty-five minutes. If desired, you can ice
these once they have cooled a bit.
                                ------------
                             Tomato Barley Soup
                              by Donna W. Hill
                                 **********
      Make this soup in an eight-quart pot, and serve with warm, buttered
corn bread.
                                 **********
Ingredients:
2 28-ounce cans tomato puree
2 28-ounce cans crushed tomatoes
1/4 cup of your favorite wine--I use dry red
1 heaping teaspoon horseradish
1 tablespoon dried basil
2 tablespoons brown sugar
Scant tablespoon salt or Tamari sauce
Splash hot sauce
Pepper to taste
1 1/2 quarts milk
1 cup barley, cooked in 3 cups water, a pinch salt, and pat butter
5 ribs celery, chopped
10 cloves garlic, minced
1 large onion, chopped
2 or 3 yellow or red sweet or frying peppers, seeded and chopped
Olive oil
                                 **********
      Method: Bring barley to boil, stir, cover, remove from heat, and
allow to stand for half an hour. In olive oil in large pot saut
vegetables. Add the cooked barley, including any water not absorbed Then
add tomatoes, puree, wine, and spices. Simmer soup covered for a half hour,
stirring occasionally to prevent sticking. Add more sugar if soup base
tastes too tart. Then add milk and heat through again before serving.
Note: We freeze this soup, so, to save freezer space, we freeze it before
adding the milk. We add the milk before serving or reheating.
                                ------------
                                Peach Cobbler
                              by Anthony Evans
                                 **********
      Anthony Evans is a Performing Arts board member, producer, and
musical mentor.
                                 **********
Ingredients:
1 stick butter
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 cup whole milk
1 cup sugar
2 cups peaches, peeled and sliced
                                 **********
      Method: Preheat oven to 350. Place the butter in a 13-by-9-inch
baking dish and put it into the oven to melt. Combine flour, sugar, baking
powder, and salt in a mixing bowl and mix well. Pour milk into the bowl and
stir to make a batter. Remove baking dish from oven. Pour batter into dish.
Pour peaches and their juice evenly over the batter. Bake for 30 minutes.
Top should be golden brown when cobbler is done, or run a spoon over crust
to check that it feels hard. Remove to a rack and allow to sit for fifteen
minutes before serving with ice cream or whipped cream.
                                ------------
                            Herb-Marinated Steak
                               by Turiya Hall
                                 **********
      Turiya Hall is a Performing Arts Division member, poetry writer, and
stay-at-home mom.

                                 **********
Ingredients:
1 package Montreal Steak Marinade
1 teaspoon lemon pepper
1 teaspoon crushed thyme
 teaspoon garlic powder
1 tablespoon olive oil
3 pounds boneless sirloin steak
                                 **********
      Method: Mix marinade well with other seasonings. Rub olive oil on
steak. Place steak in large, resealable plastic bag and add seasoning
mixture. Turn steak and coat well with marinade so that entire steak is
covered. Place bag in refrigerator for at least one hour or up to
overnight. Preheat broiler for five minutes. For medium rare steak,
internal temperature of meat should be 145, 160 for medium, and 170 for
well done. Serves six.
                                ------------
                             Monitor Miniatures
                                 **********
                       News from the Federation Family
                                 **********
[PHOTO CAPTION: Ray McGeorge February 28, 1930, to June 18, 2010]
In Memoriam:
      As we went to press, we learned that our dear friend and colleague,
Ray McGeorge, died peacefully after a short illness, on Friday morning,
June 18. As a young husband and father Ray served as president of the
Colorado affiliate. Later he regained much of his vision, and, when his
wife Diane began to exert leadership in the Denver chapter and Colorado
affiliate, he was always to be found at her side supporting her and in his
quiet way working and encouraging everyone around him.
      In later life Ray again became blind and was a role model for older
students at the Colorado Center for the Blind, where he taught classes and
inspired seniors to get back into life and enjoy themselves. NFB events and
activities without Ray's humor and steady good sense are almost
inconceivable. In our shared grief we embrace Diane, their grandson
Michael, and Ray's hundreds of friends at this time of sorrow and loss. We
will all deeply miss our brother and friend Ray McGeorge.

Elected:
      On May 8, 2010, the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota
elected the following officers during its state convention in Mitchell: Ken
Rollman, president; Kathleen Nelson, second vice president; Wayne Lyons,
treasurer; and board members, George Nelson, Wayne Erickson, and Sue Fioch.
                                 **********
Deaf-Blind Division:
      If you didn't have an opportunity to examine and purchase T-shirts
from the NFB's Deaf-Blind Division during convention, you are invited to
contact Burnell Brown at <brownburnell@aol.com> for additional details
about remaining colors and sizes.
                                 **********
Elected:
      In January 2010 the National Federation of the Blind River Valley
Chapter of Fort Smith, Arkansas, elected the following officers: Gary Hall,
president; Dava Kelly, vice president; Darlene Worley, secretary; Della
Plum, treasurer; and board members, Neda Denadle and Freddy Wilky.
                                ************
                                ************
                                  In Brief
                                ************
      Notices and information in this section may be of interest to Monitor
readers. We are not responsible for the accuracy of the information; we
have edited only for space and clarity.
                                 **********
Handmade Bath and Body Products:
      Are you looking for a way to treat yourself or to give a gift to
someone special? Find whatever you're looking for in my extensive line of
custom-made soaps, bath salts, shower gel, hand soap, shampoo, bubble bath,
lotion, body splash, lip balm, and scented jar candles. In soaps I have
shea butter, olive oil, and goat's milk, all of which are good for the
skin. I have molds in flower, animal, nautical, fantasy, and basic shapes.
My bath products come in four- or eight-ounce bottles. Scents range from
floral (rose, lavender, or honeysuckle) to fruit flavors and other edible
varieties. I also have a selection of flavored lip balms. Candles are eight-
ounce jars and have a burn time of up to fifty hours. Prices are
affordable, ranging from $2 to $7 per item. For further information, write
to <sirius_black@comcast.net> or call (952) 236-7517.
                                 **********
Materials Needed in Malawi:
      Stephanie Pieck collects four- and two-track commercial audio
cassettes and Braille and large-print books and magazines. She also
collects Braille and large-print children's picture books, slates, folding
canes, games, and educational materials. She forwards these materials to a
bishop in Malawi, Africa, to distribute to blind adults and children.
Stephanie also teaches Braille correspondence music courses, and she has
composed music recorded on CDs for sale. For further information about
either of these initiatives, contact Stephanie at 1371 Kings Road,
Schenectady, New York 12303; (518) 464-0484; <www.themusicsuite.net>
                                 **********

Honorary Degree Awarded:

      Salus University honored Mr. Lawrence F. Campbell, president of the
International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairments
(ICEVI) with the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters at its
commencement on May 23 at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia. Introduced by
his friend and colleague Dr. Kathleen M. Huebner, associate dean of the
College of Education and Rehabilitation, Mr. Campbell spoke to the
graduates about his first experience with a person with a visual
impairment. He told the audience about Mrs. Harrison of Jamaica, a blind
woman who was a prisoner in her own home, dependent upon the kindness of
her neighbors for food and water. At the time Mr. Campbell was a new
graduate and an inexperienced Peace Corps volunteer, but, as he worked with
Mrs. Harrison on his own time, together they taught each other. Mr.
Campbell spoke to the graduates about how his experience in Jamaica changed
the direction of his life, convincing him to work with people who had
visual impairments, something he had not considered before meeting Mrs.
Harrison, who today is the owner of three stores in Jamaica and has enjoyed
an independent life for many years.
      Since his Peace Corps service Mr. Campbell went on to earn a master of
education degree in special education and is regarded as a valuable
resource among those who work with blind and multiply impaired people. In
addition to being its president, Mr. Campbell is currently chairperson of
the ICEVI Global Task Force on Education for All Children with Visual
Impairment and a member of the executive committee of the World Blind
Union. A founding member of Vision Alliance, a consortium of three global
umbrella organizations for prevention, education, and rehabilitation of the
blind and visually impaired, Mr. Campbell also has significantly increased
collaboration and recognition by intergovernmental organizations (e.g.,
UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO) and international nongovernment organizations.
                                 **********
Best Math Tool:
      The following brief reference to our own Dr. Abraham Nemeth appeared
in the June-July issue of Reader's Digest on pages 124 and 125. It appeared
as part of a series on the best Americans. Here is the story:
                                 **********
      Abraham Nemeth loved his high school math classes. But, born blind,
he couldn't read the textbooks-at the time there was no Braille code for
numerical equations. His guidance counselor suggested he study psychology
instead.
      After he graduated from college and grad school, though, his handicap
made it difficult for him to find a job in his chosen field. "My wife told
me maybe I'd be happier as an unemployed mathematician than as an
unemployed psychologist," he says. So Nemeth returned to school as a
doctoral student in mathematics with an emphasis in topology-and improvised
a method for capturing equations as he listened to lectures. Today the
Nemeth Code is a universal math and science writing system for the blind.
      But why stop there? At age ninety-one, retired but still hard at
work, he has invented the Nemeth Uniform Braille System. Currently under
review, the system could standardize Braille codes across academic
disciplines for the first time in the United States. "I'm living proof that
it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness," he says.
                                 **********
Pen Pal Wanted:
      Kelly Melee, a teacher in a classroom with intellectually disabled
students, including some with vision impairment, is eager to find a pen pal
to help her develop her skill with the code and to learn more about the
lifestyle of the vision impaired. She is currently learning Braille.
Interested correspondents should contact her at Kelly Melee, 2020 Wade
Stephenson Road, Holly Springs, North Carolina 27504.
                                 **********
Blind Christian Singles List:
      I have recently started a listserv for blind and vision-impaired
Christian singles: Christians who are not married because they never have
been, are divorced, or are widowed. On this list we will share prayer,
fellowship, devotionals, and friendship. If God leads, we might even help
one another find the one God meant for us to meet. To subscribe, email
<blind-christian-singles-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>.
                                 **********
School for the Blind in Africa Project:
      My daughters, Katie and Kristie, and I are interested in providing
assistance to the Pacelli School for the Blind and Visually Impaired,
located in Surulere, Lagos, Nigeria. The school serves students in grades K-
10, and the school's administrator is Sister Grace Ushie. The school has
many needs. My daughters have chosen to gather used white canes and used
slates and styluses for the students as their way of helping the school.
      My role is to get these items to the Pacelli School. As part of my
work assignment, I regularly travel to Nigeria. I can have these items
delivered to the school. Please send used white canes and slates and
styluses to Katie and Kristie at the address below. I will take the items
with me when I travel to Nigeria and have them delivered to the school.
      For transporting purposes, telescoping or folding canes are preferred.
Because the school serves a wide age range of kids, cane lengths of all
sizes can be used. My contact information is Rick Colton, 3881 Silver Spur
Circle, Park City, Utah 84098. I can be reached by phone at (435) 649-4835,
or by email at <rwcolton@ourlink.net>.
                                 **********
NLS Digital Reader Executive Carrying Case Available:
      Executive Products has created a new soft form-fitted custom executive
NLS/BPH case for the NLS/BPH digital Talking Book player. The case is made
of water-resistant, durable Italian faux leather. This case fits snuggly
around your unit and has a storage zippered compartment for up to three
cartridges and other accessories. It can be secured in the open position by
fastening the flap under the unit. In the closed position the pocket/flap
protects the keys, covers the cartridge area, covers the power cord area in
the rear, and protects the unit. The case enables the user to reach all
keys and ports easily. It allows easy access for loading cartridges. The
unit can be carried on a comfortable shoulder or hand-carry strap. The unit
may be used while walking, sitting, or standing. This case fits both the
standard and advanced NLS units.
      To order, visit our Website at <www.ExecutiveProductsInc.com>, or
email us at <Customer_care@executiveproductsinc.com>, or call us at (818)
833-8822.
                                 **********
New Book Available:
      VIEW International Foundation is pleased to announce the availability
of a new book. This is the start of a new series which we are calling the
Anne and Alex Explorer Series. The title is Anne and Alex 1996; Book One.
      Anne, age seven, is sighted, and Alex, age six, is blind. Anne and
Alex are to be adopted by the family of Ben and Mary Walker, who live in
Forest Grove, Oregon. Anne and Alex have a series of adventures. They visit
real places that their readers could also visit. This series is intended
for junior high and above.
      The good characters in this series adhere to traditional family
values. For more information, to read a few chapters, or have an
opportunity to purchase a copy, visit
<http://www.viewinternational.org/viewprojects.html>. Look for the word
"Anne" for faster navigation. An electronic copy in various formats is
$9.95. If you have questions, contact Robert Jaquiss by email at
<rjaquiss@earthlink.net> or by phone at (318) 396-1853.
                                 **********
Still Fighting Law Examiners:
      In our ongoing advocacy for access, the National Federation of the
Blind continues to advocate for blind graduates of law schools who
regularly find their ability to take the multi-state portion of the bar
examination challenged by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the
entity responsible for this part of the examination. The following article,
taken from the Associated Press on June 6, 2010, reports on our most recent
efforts. Here it is:
                                 **********
           Bar Examiners Don't See Eye to Eye with Blind Law Grads
                               by Scott Broom
                                 **********
      Three blind law students are suing over which software they are
allowed to use while taking the bar exam. Attorney Daniel F. Goldstein says
the accommodations offered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners are
"wildly inferior" to the programs used by plaintiffs Timothy Elder, Anne
Blackfield, and Michael Witver, who still has some sight.
      The Maryland State Board of Law Examiners allowed them to use their
preferred software for the state-law sections but deferred to the Wisconsin-
based national governing body for the Multistate Bar Examination. The
three, who graduated this spring, plan to take the bar exam in July. The
suit was filed Wednesday [June 9] in U.S. District Court under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The three lost sight due to degenerative
disease and are not proficient at Braille.
                                ************
                                ************
                                Monitor Mart
                                ************
      The notices in this section have been edited for clarity, but we can
pass along only the information we were given. We are not responsible for
the accuracy of the statements made or the quality of the products for
sale.
                                ************
For Sale:
      I have unopened audiographing calculator software from ViewPlus that
has never been registered on any computer. This is fully accessible
software for graphic and scientific calculations, and it works on Windows
operating systems. The software assists people who are blind or have
dyslexia or other learning disabilities. The original price for this
product was $295; I am selling it for $250. For further information contact
Alfredo Holguin at <diabloxx14@gmail.com>
                                 **********
For Sale:
      I have a BookSense XT for sale for $400 or best offer. If the buyer
mentions this notice in the Braille Monitor, 5 percent of the purchase
price will be donated to NFB's general operating fund. The unit is in
excellent physical and working order, but, as usual, all sales are final.
The unit does not come with any external storage. At the time of this
writing, it is running the latest firmware, and, should an upgrade be
released between the time of this writing and sale of the unit, it will be
installed. For more information contact Jeremiah Z. Rogers at (704) 996-
5334 or <onthenet@jzrogers.com>.

                                 ----------
                                 NFB Pledge
      I pledge to participate actively in the efforts of the National
Federation of the Blind to achieve equality, opportunity, and security for
the blind; to support the policies and programs of the Federation; and to
abide by its constitution.
-----------------------
      [1] Patrick Schnarrenberger, a graduate student, was the research
assistant for both the pilot project and the full research project. He
reviewed this article and gave many valuable suggestions to make it clear
and easy to understand.
      [2] Final Order Ex. 1 at 4.
      [3] See Final Order Ex. 1 at  4.2.
      [4] See id. at  4.4.1.
      [5] On or about June 2, 2004, Cardtronics LP acquired Access's ATM
business.

