[Art_beyond_sight_learning_tools] ACTION NEEDED: LET SECRETARY SPELLINGS HEAR FROM YOU

[David Andrews]

>From: "McCarthy, Jim" <JMcCarthy at NFB.ORG>
>To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:34 PM
>Subject: ACTION NEEDED: LET SECRETARY SPELLINGS HEAR FROM YOU
>
>
>Fellow Federationists,
>
>First, thank you so much for all the letters you have drafted and sent to
>Secretary Spellings.  However, we absolutely cannot get complacent.  Those
>who have been waiting to write letters must wait no more!  If you have
>already written your letter, get a family member, a neighbor, or another
>disabled person to write a letter-get support from anyone you can for this
>purpose.  Reach out and seek the support of all organizations in your
>community where you have relationships.
>
>I know many of you are starting your preparation for our rally/demonstration
>at the Department of Education in Washington on May 26.  We certainly need
>every one of you who can attend to do so, nevertheless, this cannot keep you
>from writing letters, or from getting others to write letters as well.  The
>a small number of blind people requires us to work hard on issues of
>concern.  Fortunately, the NFB has succeeded because we do not shy away from
>hard work.
>
>You should think of the letter-writing process as the means to build
>pressure on Secretary Spellings.  The rally will then demonstrate our public
>commitment as another phase of the overall effort.  When we began the
>letter-writing campaign, I stated that we needed a prolonged operation to
>get Secretary Spellings' attention.  This fact has not changed, so keep up
>your resolve!  We have several more weeks ahead of us and the letters must
>keep coming.
>
>I recognize that some of you are a bit unsure of what it is important to say
>in your letter.  I provided you a sample that hits all of the major points,
>but I never intended it to be used word for word or to imply that all of the
>points had to be included.  Remember that it is important for you to
>personalize your letters.  The contributions rehab has made to your
>independence and employment, or those you expect it to make for you are also
>things to be shared.
>
>Ms. Spellings knows next to nothing about rehabilitation and the critical
>role it plays in our lives; therefore we need to help her learn, and through
>her learning, hopefully she will come to understand.  I have some good
>examples of compelling letters to provide you that may offer ideas you had
>not considered.
>
>Secretary Spellings has two email addresses; please use both of them.  Email
>and fax are the best means to reach Secretary Spellings, but for those of
>you who lack access to these methods, I am providing a phone number as well.
>Her email address (in care of her assistant) is Christina.Wilson at ed.gov, and
>her other email address is Margaret.spellings at ed.gov.  Her fax number is
>202-401-0596.  Her phone number is 202-401-3000.
>
>It is very important that we write the Secretary of Education.  Recall
>though that we need you to send copies of your letters to your two Senators,
>and to your Representative.  I also need a copy of the letter you send the
>Secretary of Education.  Your commitment to this important matter is
>appreciated.  Keep up the good work.
>
>
>James McCarthy
>Director of Governmental Affairs, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
>1800 Johnson Street
>Baltimore Maryland, 21230
>Phone: (410) 659-9314 Extension 2240
>
>[This letter is very short, but it hits key points and the writer does a
>good job of personalizing her comments.]
>
>When I became blind in 1990, my state rehabilitation services provided me
>with the equipment, knowledge, and training to achieve independence and
>self-confidence.
>I am president of a local organization of blind people in my county.  After
>bringing to their attention the proposed budget cuts to the rehabilitation
>services, they encouraged me to write to you with our concerns.  All of the
>members of our organization have benefited from services received through
>our state rehabilitation service agency, and want to see people who are
>newly blind receive the same training. Without adequate services, blind
>individuals will find it difficult to find independence and gainful
>employment.
>
>It is hard to imagine state agencies that serve the blind could continue to
>operate in an efficient way, if half the staff is cut and regional offices
>are closed.  Also alarming, is the division of the blind becoming obsolete
>as part of the proposed reorganization.  Without the Division of the Blind,
>many consumers, vendors, and seniors will not receive adequate services,
>preventing them from living a full and productive life.
>
>Finally, we wish to see the status of the RSA head remain a commissioner
>rather than that of a mere director.  Lessening the importance of the head
>of the RSA will weaken the RSA commission and deny the ability of blind and
>disabled people independence and job placement.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>[This second writer is well-informed about rehab, and followed the sample
>letter as a guide, but used little of its actual content.]
>
>Dear Secretary Spellings:
>
>I am a blind person who, throughout the course of my life, has received many
>beneficial services from our state/federal vocational rehabilitation system.
>With the help of this system, I have been able to maintain successful and
>productive employment for more than thirty years.  Having dealt personally
>with no less than four state agencies providing services to the blind and
>having also worked with other blind people around the country to obtain the
>best services possible from various state agencies, I would be the first
>person to tell you that the system as we know it today is not perfect.
>However, compared to everything else--particularly, the services available
>(or should I say not available) through our one-stop system of workforce
>centers, the rehabilitation system as it now exists represents the best
>chance for the blind to achieve any kind of independence, employment, and
>success in our society.  Why, then, Secretary Spellings, does it appear that
>the Bush administration has declared war against the blind and other people
>with disabilities?
>
>1. I have received information indicating that the Rehabilitation Services
>Administration (RSA) will be cutting more than half of its staff nationwide
>and closing all of its regional offices.  I am told that the monitoring of
>the state agencies providing critical rehabilitation services will be
>performed by staff in Washington, D.C.  It stretches credibility beyond
>belief to imagine how such monitoring will continue to be performed with the
>same timeliness and quality when more than half of the RSA staff has been
>eliminated.  It has been said that rehabilitation should follow an oversight
>model that is similar to that used in Education, where money flows from
>Washington directly to State departments which, in turn, actually perform
>the oversight functions.  What this line of thinking fails to recognize is
>that today, there is no capability within the states to perform the
>monitoring and oversight of rehabilitation agencies with the depth and
>breadth of understanding that exists within the RSA regional offices.  From
>my perspective, the announced reductions within RSA are ill timed, poorly
>planned, and disrespectful of the desires of people with disabilities who
>want a rehabilitation system that reflects a philosophy of empowerment and
>hope--something which was beginning to happen under the administration of
>Joanne Wilson, RSA's last commissioner.
>
>2. The administration's cavalier treatment of people with disabilities, as
>represented by its plans to eviscerate RSA, causes me to worry with some
>justification that the Division for the Blind within RSA will be next on the
>chopping block.  This division liaisons with states operating separate
>agencies and/or programs for the blind and provides essential guidance to
>the states in the management of their Randolph-Sheppard and Independent
>Living for Older Blind programs.  Perhaps more important, the existence of
>the Division for the Blind sends a clear message that the Federal Government
>recognizes the unique and specialized service requirements of people who are
>blind.  This division must not be destroyed in the quest to save money and
>streamline the Rehabilitation Services Administration.  If the division is
>quashed, who else will understand the subtleties and complexities that
>training in Braille, independent travel, and nonvisual access technology
>entails?
>
>3. The Bush administration has also been pushing for something called WIA
>Plus, a provision which, if adopted, would permit states to consolidate
>vocational rehabilitation funds with other, unrelated job training funds.
>This ill-conceived approach would virtually eliminate any pre-vocational or
>independence training for the blind--training that is essential if a blind
>person is to compete in the labor market on a basis of equality with others.
>Also, those states adopting the WIA Plus consolidation option would be
>monitored by the Department of Labor instead of the Rehabilitation Services
>Administration; the former has neither the knowledge of rehabilitation nor
>the positive track record of providing the blind with full and equal access
>to its Workforce Centers.  WIA Plus would, in effect, wipe out the gains
>that have already been made under the Rehabilitation Act having to do with
>informed choice, personal empowerment, and an increased focus on integrated
>competitive employment.
>
>4. The Administration continues to press for the demotion of the RSA
>Commissioner position, currently appointed by the President with
>confirmation by the Senate, to a Director position that requires neither.
>This is yet another indication that the administration is committed to a
>course of action that would severely damage the provision of rehabilitation
>services in this country at the expense of all people with
>disabilities--including the blind.
>
>When taken together, all of the aforementioned proposals by the Bush
>Administration demonstrate a callous disregard for the blind and other
>people with disabilities.  They also fail to recognize the significant gains
>that have been made in the programs on which we depend to achieve
>independence and self sufficiency.  The Bush Administration should not be
>trying to dismantle rehabilitation, it should work to strengthen and improve
>the system.  It should take its cue from people with disabilities who, over
>the years, have understood what rehabilitation needs and have worked to
>incorporate reforms into the
>Rehabilitation Act.
>
>Under the President's new Freedom Initiative, there is an expressed
>commitment to independence and integration for people with disabilities.
>For me, a blind person, the rehabilitation system offers the very best
>promise for this commitment to become a reality.  The system, when properly
>understood, should be providing me with the services, skills, and support I
>need to become fully integrated into the community on a parity with my
>sighted friends, peers, and coworkers.
>
>Please give close attention to the points I have raised in this letter and
>reverse the destructive trend that has been started by forces hostile to
>quality rehabilitation in the United States.
>
>Yours sincerely,