[blindlaw] nfb currency resolution from 1994

Mon Dec 18 05:46:06 CST 2006

Tim,  Thank you for your very thoughtful analysis.  We can depend on such 
thoughtfulness from you.  I don't share your optomism about the outcome from 
the Supreme Court on this matter.  But I do think the idea of lobbying for 
the changes with the treasury is the best idea.  Believe me, this is not the 
only thing that the U.S. is out on its own about.  This particular 
administration doesn't care about that.

I hadn't known about the resolutions from NFB, and certainly not the 
appearance before Congress in 1997.  That makes it even more unjustifiable 
to me that the NFB now takes the position that it's unnecessary and might 
hurt employment opportunities.  NFB missed the opportunity here of saying: 
"well we've been talking about and requesting this change for a long time; 
it is a necessary change."  NFB could have gone on to say that they didn't 
think the lawsuit itself was a good idea.  I don't think ACB will prevail 
before the Supreme Court, but maybe they have done us all a favor by 
bringing this to people's attention.  Maybe ultimately something will happen 
that would benefit us all, not only the blind, but seniors and others as 
well.
Kathy Hagen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ford, Tim (DHS-OLS)" <TFord at dhs.ca.gov>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb currency resolution from 1994

>I can see your points, and the difference between making such changes as
> part of a routine change, versus a forced one.
>
> However, now knowing that the United States is the only country that has
> not made these modifications, then I now wonder why the Treasury did not
> make the changes when it would have been much easier.  I fear that it
> was nothing more than lobbying from the vending industry and any other
> industry for which changing currency design might cost some money.
>
> I have thought about this issue a lot since the story broke.  I think it
> is almost in a category by itself, since handling cash is something that
> virtually everybody does on a regular basis.  I also have now concluded
> that the sighted public thinks this is a fine idea, and does not go past
> that.
>
> I appreciate the concern expressed in the NFB's current position, but
> just think that it is simply not a connection that the sighted public
> will make.  I am actually concerned that raising the premise, that
> sighted folks will think that the blind need everything set up for them
> and thus will not hire them, is now been put into the public's mind.
> That thought was not there before, at least not in the way of a
> connection between accessible money and the other issues of workplace
> accommodations.  It is like "well, I had not thought about that before,
> but now that you mention it".
>
> So in general, I think that in this currency matter us blind folks are
> worried about issues or distinctions that are just too much of an inside
> concept, and way too subtle for the general sighted population to think
> of on their own.  We now have put that thought into their head.
>
> Yes, of course blind people have been dealing with inaccessible currency
> for as long as there has been such things, but there is no way to get
> around the fact that we are at the mercy of sighted folks, or some
> electronic gizmo, to know what bills we have.  So I just do not
> understand the premise that blind folks successfully deal with money all
> the time.  What we do is manage as best we can with the situation, but
> nobody can say that we are doing this independently.
>
> I do not see this as a sign of weakness or anything else but the reality
> of the situation.  So what we instead do is manage our situation, and do
> as much as we can independently.  But in this money situation, there is
> no way to get around the basic point that the blind are not
> independently dealing with paper currency.
>
> I do not feel the sighted public thinks less of us because of this
> currency lawsuit, nor would they extrapolate from the paper currency
> issue to thinking that the blind are all of a sudden a lot more helpless
> and a pain to deal with.
>
> So if I understand this correctly, the current NFB position is more to
> the effect that it would be fine and nice to have accessible currency,
> so long as nobody has to spend much extra money to accomplish that.  And
> the important thing is to consider this a nice thing to do, but in no
> way a legal right.  I think there is something to this premise in that
> people obviously feel better about doing something voluntarily, as
> opposed to being forced to.  All of us are capable of that human
> reaction.
>
> My crystal ball tells me that the ACB's premise will ultimately prevail,
> even at the Supreme Court level, because it strikes sighted folks as
> pretty fundamental, and the fact that the United States is out all by
> itself on this one will be seen as eliminating any notion of an
> unreasonable burden.  I also see this as being a case that will be
> limited to its own facts, and will not have the consequences dreaded by
> some.  Of course all of this is my opinion, and thus worthless!
>
> Perhaps the best practical solution is for all of us to ask Congress to
> simply tell the Treasury to do this, as a matter of just being a fair
> thing that the rest of the world has already done.  The ACB lawsuit
> would become moot, and we can avoid the concerns about how the legal
> issues might have unintended adverse consequences.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Tim Ford
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Danielsen
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:40 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb currency resolution from 1994
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Without exhaustive parsing of this resolution and the House resolution
> and
> debate you posted earlier, I would say off the cuff that both of these
> resolutions were passed when the treasury was actively engaged in the
> process of redesigning currency.  Both the NFB and the House supported
> considering tactile additions to the currency while that redesign
> process
> was going forward.  However, the NFB did make it clear that we didn't
> want
> currency changed solely for the sake of the blind, but only if doing so
> also
> served other purposes; and as the below resolution indicates, we never
> wanted the public to get the idea that the blind couldn't handle
> currency as
> it is.  Furthermore, though the segment of the Congressional record you
> posted indicates support for feasible tactile changes to the currency,
> its
> sponsor didn't support "radical" redesign of the currency.
>
> For me, at least, the crux of the problem with the recent court decision
> is
> that it says currency "discriminates" against the blind.  Discrimination
> is
> a strong word; it implies that the group being discriminated against is
> barred from having or doing something.  Furthermore, the court said the
> blind are denied "meaningful access" to the currency by the way it's
> designed.  The court was trying to apply a balancing test whereby access
> has
> to be considered, but also whether an accommodation is reasonable.  I
> understand the court's reasoning, but to me, "meaningful" access goes to
> the
> question of whether blind people can use paper money.  We can, and have
> done
> so for years.  I do think Treasury probably hasn't done its due
> diligence on
> this issue (especially given its rather lame arguments before the
> court),
> and there mnay be all sorts of good reasons, including helping the
> blind, to
> change the money.  But to say that the blind can't use paper money
> unless
> it's changed, and that this alone means it must be changed, seems to me
> to
> be going overboard.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ford, Tim (DHS-OLS)" <TFord at dhs.ca.gov>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 6:37 PM
> Subject: [blindlaw] nfb currency resolution from 1994
>
>
>>From another list.  With this, and the 1997 Congressional resolution,
>>it
> seems that the current position on accessible currency has gone through
> a fair amount of change.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: disability-civil-rights at yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:disability-civil-rights at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of joe harcz
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: blind democracy List
> Cc: acb-chat at acb.org; Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List
> Subject: [disability-civil-rights] nfb currency resolution from 1994
>
>
>
> NFB Currency Resolution 1994 (Res. 94-07)
>
> Resolution 94-07
>
>
>
> WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Treasury is examining
> alternatives to the present currency for the purposes of making
> counterfeiting more difficult
>
> and for making currency more compatible with modern technology; and
>
>
>
> WHEREAS, revisions to the present currency may include variations in
> color, raised markings, bar coding, or other electronically readable
> formats; and
>
>
>
> WHEREAS, it is a widespread misconception that blind people cannot
> handle their own money because they cannot see it; and
>
>
>
> WHEREAS, it is beyond dispute that blind people can, in fact, handle
> their own money; however, bills which can be identified by other than
> conventional
>
> print could be more convenient for everyone, may be a necessity to
> safeguard against counterfeiting, and may be desirable to take the best
> advantage of
>
> evolving technology: Now, therefore,
>
>
>
> BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention
> assembled this seventh day of July, 1994, in the City of Detroit,
> Michigan, that this
>
> organization express the interest of blind people in the discussion of a
> modernized form of currency so that any changes which may eventually be
> made will
>
> include methods of identifying money by other than strictly visual
> means; and
>
>
>
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Federation, notwithstanding its
> expressed interest in the ultimate decisions on currency changes, do all
> in its power correctly
>
> to inform the public that blind people can and do successfully handle
> money in its present form.
>
> http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/resol94.htm
>
> __._,_.___
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97476590/grpId=9091293/grpspId=1705059354/m
> sgId=3166/stime=1166304244>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> 