NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/misc/handicap/6507

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-10 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!isc-br!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
From: [e-mail] (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Guide Dog Blues
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:41:55 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
Lines: 70
Approved: [e-mail]
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 24506

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hello, Christopher.

As an active NFB member, I am truly sorry that you feel you
received rude, uncaring treatment from the NFB of CA.  I shall
forbear making any comments upon your local NFB chapter though it
is tempting.  I shall only say in this regard that in
participation lies the road to change.

Let me address the principal matter of your post -- your problem
with motels refusing to rent to you and your companion because of
her guide dog.  This is clearly illegal both under Massachusetts
White Cane Law and, IMHO, under the Title III of the ADA if the
motels have a large enough staff.  The question is how to tackle
this discrimination.

You are dissatisfied with the treatment you received when you
notified the NFB of California of the discrimination you and your
companion faced.  You say that the President of the NFB of
California should have taken down the pertinent information to
pass along to the NFB of Massachusetts or, at the very least,
should have given the number of the NFB of Massachusetts'
telephone number or that of its President, Priscilla Ferris.  As
far as I am aware, no state president of an NFB affiliate, upon
being elected to office, is given a roster of the names/phone
numbers of the other 51 NFB state affiliate presidents.
Therefore, the President of the NFB of California probably did
not have the NFB of Massachusetts' phone number or that of its
president to hand.  Now consider your expectation that the
president of the NFB of California should have taken the
requisite information for transmittal to the proper authority.
Consider the process:  she takes the info from you.  The next
day, she calls the NFB National Office to get the number of the
NFB of Massachusetts or that of President Ferris.  She then calls
the NFB of Massachusetts or Ms. Ferris to pass along the
information.  Ms. Ferris or her designee then must call you back
to verify the details of the incident (you wouldn't want the NFB
to run on hearsay, would you?).  Several steps could have been
saved by taking the President of the NFB of California's advice
and calling the Massachusetts affiliate directly (even if you had
to call Baltimore headquarters first).  At least two phone calls
and wasted effort and possible distortion of the information
would be saved by this procedure.  You were given sound advice.

Furthermore, you would have to deal with the Massachusetts
affiliate on an ongoing basis, filing affidavits stipulating as
to the facts; the Massachusetts affiliate might have to test the
validity of your experiences by trying to obtain rooms at the
motels in question as a test case.  You'd have to deal with them
anyway, why not start from the beginning.

This does not excuse rude behavior.  My only point is that the
advice given you might not have been as off-the-wall as you
appear to think it is.

I hope that the whole matter can be resolved to everyone's
satisfaction and that the motels get what they deserve.  Good
luck!

Cordially,

Mike Freeman
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: [e-mail]