[nfb-talk] Fw: Update on Currency case

[T. Joseph Carter]

I do think it somewhat misrepresents the view I have seen here on this
list, (though perhaps not Scott's statements to the panel) to suggest that
the issue is not important to us.  I think it would take about 36 hours to
find just how important we consider the issue!

What you would not find, however, is consensus on what should be done, if
anything at all.   There are several issues to consider.  Here are a few:

 - It would cost taxpayers a lot of money to replace our existing currency
   with something new.
 - It would cost owners of any machine that currently reads currency a
   non-trivial amount to update their machines to read new bills.
 - To say that a blind person cannot use the US currency sells us short.
   As someone else recently quoted Jernigan as saying, we will find good
   ways to access it ourselves.
 - As a matter of law, is the ACB correct in their assertion that the
   currency must be changed if it is found to be inaccessible?  The jury
   (or in this case the panel of judges) is still out on this one!
 - Let's say the ACB wins this case.  What happens next?  What sort of
   timetable exists for a transition from existing currency to new
   currency?

If the technical and economic factors were trivially solved, not solely
introduced for our benefit, and if the US Treasury were to proceed
voluntarily with a redesigned greenback, I think you would find
enthusiastic support unanimously expressed within the Federation.  We
would be happy to accept the added convenience, if circumstances allowed
for them.

The technical and economic factors are not trivially solved, however.  Do
you mandate that everyone exchange their currency, old for new, by a
certain date?  That's unreasonable.  Anything else means a transition
process, which in turn means that for some unspecified time you will have
to deal with both old and new currency.  How long ago were the blue twenty
dollar bills released?  I still find older bills from the 1980s today once
in awhile.  The US Treasury could not legitimately claim to meet the terms
of a ruling in favor of the ACB with a transition plan that takes multiple
decades to complete.

Any redesign that changes the dollar bill places a huge burden on anyone
who operates a machine that accepts the dollar bill.  There are tons of
those.  In fact, the dollar bill has remained unchanged in the previous
two currency revisions not out of any sense of nostalgia for the good ol'
American dollar, but because it'd be a nightmare to update all of those
good ol' American vending machines to accept something new.  The only
solution we came up with that's durable enough is for the dollar bill to
be the smallest of bills which get larger as their value increases, and
that probably means a much shorter dollar bill than we have right now.

Then there's the whole question of whether we actually need this or not,
the applicability of the law, and the public reaction to all of this.  The
National Federation of the Blind is right to be concerned that the public
may well get the wrong impression of the blind from all of this.  (I have
stated my personal opinion that the public will see it differently than we
fear they might, but the concern is valid.)  If the public collectively
comes to view us as unable to work with money as a result of this, we are
going to have a very hard time getting a job to work anywhere money
changes hands until the transition is complete, however many decades away
that is.  That would certainly be a major step backwards for us!

The law may not apply the way the ACB is trying to apply it.  That will be
up to the judges, ultimately.  I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong
here) that findings of fact in previous rulings state that the existing
currency is not sufficiently accessible to the blind.  If that is the
case, the NFB can continue to make statements to the contrary, but as far
as the courts are concerned, that issue is settled as far as the courts
would be concerned.  As I understand it, the findings of law are subject
to appeal, and I believe there's also some debate possible as to what
remedy should be imposed if they lose.

Any of these issues should give us pause to consider the risks and
benefits of this suit.  All of them together provide us with sufficient
concern that we simply cannot support the suit as an organization.


Stating my bias, for the record: I wish the ACB had found another avenue
than this lawsuit to do this because it should be done.  I support a 20 or
30 year transition plan to a new paper currency based on graduated sizes
by denomination, each with a unique color pattern.  This transition should
happen on the existing schedule of revisions the US Treasury intends to
follow for the purpose of remaining a step ahead counterfeiters.

I believe the dollar bill should be the last denomination introduced, but
the first one designed to give vendors a decade or so to redesign
dollar-using vending machines.  I believe the cost of updating vending
machines should be partially subsidized through a tax credit to vending
machine operators (hey look, a legitimate tax break for a company--you
don't see that every day!)

I do not believe, personally, that the public will think we are less able
to use money because of this suit.  I think we risk that if the government
wins the appeal, but upholding the previous ruling provides us with a good
teachable moment we completely squandered when last we had it:  We can use
the media coverage of the decision to teach members of the press what we
do right now, and discuss what the change will eventually allow.

And yes, it will be a victory for the ACB.  So what?  They have their
victories, and we have ours.  The fact that I am a member of one and not
the other tells you whose victories I consider to be more significant.  I
don't have any moral objection to using their victory to help teach our
values to people who report the details of their victory.

Of course, I believe we're still collectively harmed if the ACB loses the
appeal.  So, ACB, don't lose!  (I can't believe I'm saying that...)

That is, of course, my personal opinion.  The Federation has decided to
oppose this action taken by the ACB for good reasons.  I don't believe any
of those reasons are going to matter if they lose, so if it were my
decision to make, we wouldn't have opposed it.  Not enough people thought
as I did though--that's how the political process works sometimes.


On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:05:13PM -0500, kaye zimpher wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katey Glass" <kglass at cviga.org>
> To: "tre" <jupiter338 at hotmail.com>; <kayezimpher at bellsouth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:15 AM
> Subject: FW: Update on Currency case
>
>
>
>
> Katey Glass
> Public Education Coordinator
> Center for the Visually Impaired
> 739 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
> Atlanta, GA 30308
> 404-875-9011, ext. 4277
>
>
> CVI eNews, our bimonthly e-newsletter, will keep you up to date on current
> happenings, upcoming events and advocacy efforts to support individuals who
> are blind or visually impaired and their families. Subscribe today!
>
>
> To learn more about vision rehabilitation or to make a gift, visit our
> website at www.cviga.org.