[blindlaw] Of Disrepute and Dysfunction at the Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind

[Shane D]

Hello Listers,

I have enclosed a copy of an article from the Braille Monitor for
December 2008 that deals with problems at the Eye Dog Foundation for
the Blind in relation to puppy raisers and poor management. The puppy
raisers, to make a lengthy story somewhat less lengthy, are refusing
to return their dogs, based on the poor management and lack of any
qualified staff to train the dogs for service to the blind. They are
currently seaking legal representation to fight the case with the EDF.

--- Lengthy Article Follows ---
   Of Disrepute and Dysfunction at the Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind
                             by Daniel B. Frye
                                **********
What would cause a committed core of volunteer puppy raisers working for
the Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind (EDF), a guide dog training school
based in Bakersfield, California, with training operations in Phoenix,
Arizona, to engage in a collective act of civil disobedience, declining to
return their animals for further training by the school? What extraordinary
circumstances would cause these volunteers to fear for their lives and
livelihoods and the safety of the puppies in their charge? Why would over
50 percent of the board of directors and three successive directors of
training and their support teams terminate their association with this
organization during the last two years? What administrative problems could
cause potential students to wait over a year for an application for
services, to be denied timely assistance managing their dogs' serious
medical problems, or to be denied the opportunity to purchase something as
simple as a replacement leash for a working EDF service animal? How is it
that a multi-million-dollar foundation that appeals to the general public
for funds to train guide dogs for the blind has not graduated a single
human-dog team during the last year? And what reputable organization would
be so insular in its operations that contact information for its governing
body is not available on request and most communications from the school's
own puppy-raising community, donors, and the media are fielded by legal
counsel instead of by the executive director?
The answers to these and other disturbing questions may be partially found
in the long and sordid story of the Eye Dog Foundation's history and
operations. Concerned members of the EDF volunteer puppy-raising community
initially contacted the Braille Monitor about this story. After examining
the facts, we concluded that the blind community, program volunteers,
donors, and appropriate oversight authorities across America deserve to
know about both the troubles and triumphs at EDF. In this way the
interested parties may become aware of the school's past and make informed
decisions about their association with it in the future. The details are
complicated, but here is what we know.
     According to Joey Etienne, the court-appointed EDF receiver for much
of 2007, the Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind, Incorporated, was founded by
Lequita McKay in 1952 to breed and train guide dogs for the blind. McKay
was apparently one of the earliest female attorneys licensed in California
to specialize in high-profile wills, trusts, and estates. She apparently
merged her passion for training guide dogs with her law practice,
persuading many of her clients over twenty years or more to donate to or
make generous bequests to EDF.
     By the middle to late 1960s, the EDF had amassed enough money to
start training and placing guide dogs with blind handlers. Etienne said
that, at some stage in the latter 1960s, McKay "somehow got crossways" with
the California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (the board), the only
governmental entity in the United States of its kind responsible for
licensing guide dog trainers and regulating guide dog schools operating in
the state. It is generally agreed that a settlement was reached between
McKay's Eye Dog Foundation and the board in about 1967 in which the board
relinquished regulatory jurisdiction over EDF in exchange for McKay's
commitment not to raise funds for EDF in California and to train guide dogs
outside the state. The school's corporate status and headquarters, however,
were permitted to remain registered in California.
     The EDF's work appears to have continued without public incident for
the next thirty-seven years or so. We talked with several current EDF
consumers, and, while Patricia Kepler and Petra Janes are presently
disappointed with various aspects of recent interactions with school
personnel, both report being generally satisfied with the quality of the
guide dogs they have received over the years.
      During this extended period of peace, a number of cultural patterns
of EDF's governance and day-to-day management emerged that foreshadowed
trouble and perhaps even enabled some of the more overt instances of
chicanery that have occurred in recent years. From 1967 through 1988, when
the EDF purchased its training campus in south Phoenix, Arizona, the school
remained a small concern compared to major guide dog schools elsewhere in
the country. In 1988 EDF abandoned its practice of providing in-home
training for a few students, and started offering a more conventional
course of study to guide dog classes at its newly acquired property in
Phoenix.
     According to Patrick Frase, EDF assistant executive director for
about two years before affairs at EDF began to unravel in 2006, the
school's small size and low public profile gave McKay an inordinate amount
of control. Frase explained that McKay manipulated the composition of the
EDF board so that it consisted of longtime friends and members of her
family. He reported that customary and transparent business practices such
as preparing annual reports and maintaining consistent meeting minutes did
not regularly occur. Frase confirmed that, with the approval of her board,
McKay sat on the EDF board while drawing an annual salary of between
$86,000 and $89,000 as the organization's executive director.
     Frase said he believes McKay may have used EDF for "suspicious if not
illegal personal tax advantages," and he reported that "red flags" were
raised for him when he saw how much money was spent, considering the small
number of dogs trained and graduated during his tenure. The Braille Monitor
has also learned from Wendy Wonderley, a former EDF board member who
ultimately resigned as a casualty of the organizational uproar soon to be
described, that under McKay's leadership, retiring employees of the school
(namely McKay herself; Ruby Bell, McKay's sister; and Lucille Gibbons, a
longtime McKay friend until the 2006 split) were entitled to receive
generous fringe benefits, including proceeds from a "profit-sharing
account," comprehensive medical coverage, and a lump sum bonus equivalent
to one half of their annual salaries. Wonderley commented that this was an
irresponsible fiscal policy for an organization the size of Eye Dog
Foundation (presently valued at somewhere between $7 and $10 million) to
adopt.
     Despite these allegations of wrong-doing and corruption, Frase
emphasized that he believes that McKay genuinely wanted to be of help to
blind people through the training of high-quality guide dogs, and he
believes that it was her positive motivation that allowed her to function
unscathed and unmasked at EDF during her fifty-five-year association with
the school. Mr. Frase's employment with EDF was ultimately terminated
because of his irreconcilable differences with McKay. Wendy Wonderley
confirmed, in terms more vague than those of Mr. Frase, her feeling that
McKay exercised an unusual degree of control over EDF, but she too believes
that McKay was sincerely committed to the mission of the school. Wonderley
put it succinctly when she said, "Lequita was a benign dictator."
     McKay's reign at Eye Dog Foundation seems to have come to an
unceremonious end during the autumn of 2006. According to Wendy Wonderley,
a series of rapid-fire EDF board transactions and legal skirmishes in the
Kern County Superior Court between the two factions of the school's board
of directors over the next twelve months resulted in Gwen Brown's wresting
control of the EDF board and the organization's executive directorship from
McKay and those loyal to her. Since the division on the EDF board and the
ensuing struggle for power were the genesis of the most recent round of
troubles, we will provide a brief chronology of events from September 2006
through September 2007.
     The following timeline has been provided largely by Wendy Wonderley,
but important dates have been confirmed by Joey Etienne and supporting
court documents. We also contacted Gwen Brown by telephone, but she
declined to be interviewed. Instead she wanted to talk only about who
prompted our decision to report this story before abruptly terminating the
telephone conversation. We repeatedly requested in writing an interview
with Ms. Brown through her legal counsel in California and Arizona. On
October 27 H. Steven Schiffres of Rosoff, Schiffres, and Barta, general
California counsel for the EDF, responded to an October 20 Braille Monitor
request for an interview, which listed potential interview topics with
Brown but did not ask specific questions or present evidence for comment as
would have been the case in an actual written interview. In his letter Mr.
Schiffres refused the interview and made few substantive statements, noting
that the Braille Monitor's October 20 inquiry did not offer details and
documentary evidence inviting a thorough response. Since our letter had
been only an invitation for an interview and not a written set of
interrogatories, his statement was technically correct. Nevertheless, his
statements will be included in this article when they are responsive to
claims critical of EDF and Brown. Finally, a statement from John D. Clark
Jr., EDF's legal counsel in Arizona, was submitted to the Braille Monitor
for publication. Apparently Clark has been employed to represent EDF only
in its effort to recover the dogs currently being housed by EDF volunteer
puppy raisers. Clark's statement is printed in full elsewhere in this
article.
     On September 23, 2006, both Gwen Brown, now executive director and
chairperson of the EDF board, and Wendy Wonderley were named to the EDF
board. Michael Hannon is a member of that board and an attorney licensed in
California. Several sources report that Hannon is Brown's spouse and
Wonderley said that Hannon nominated Brown to the school's board. According
to Wonderley, Brown received the support of all EDF board members except
McKay, who reportedly warned her colleagues that Brown's appointment would
be disastrous for EDF. Wonderley said that in retrospect she regrets her
support of Brown's nomination to the board.
     Wonderley said that on October 8, 2006, Brown called an emergency
board meeting. It is undisputed that at this meeting McKay resigned as EDF
executive director, but the parties differ about whether McKay's
resignation of her paid position included resignation from the school's
board.
     According to Schiffres's October 27 letter, the Brown faction of the
EDF board (Gwen Brown, Michael Hannon, and Lucille Gibbons) believed that
McKay resigned from both the executive directorship and her board position;
the McKay faction (Lequita McKay, Wendy Wonderley, and Louis Harris)
understood McKay to have resigned only her position as executive director,
while retaining her voting seat on the board.
     On October 21, 2006, the EDF board held another meeting, in which
four new board members were nominated, but none were elected because the
board was deadlocked. Squabbling continued about whether McKay had the
right to exercise her vote as an EDF board member.
     Wonderley reports that the McKay faction then filed a lawsuit against
EDF and the members of the Brown faction over whether McKay continued to
hold a seat on the EDF board, since a three-to-three split prevented
governance of the organization. Wonderley said that the McKay faction asked
the judge to dissolve the Foundation and to transfer its assets to Guiding
Eyes for the Blind in New York.
     On November 17, 2006, yet another EDF board meeting was convened, but
Ms. Wonderley said that she was not given notice of this gathering. She
says that, to support her and to deny the Brown faction a quorum, McKay and
Harris refused to attend this meeting. Wonderley said that during this
meeting she was voted off the board and that Brown was confirmed as EDF's
executive director. Naturally the McKay faction dismissed the actions of
the November 17 board meeting as illegal since a quorum was not present.
The McKay faction tried to overturn the decisions ratified at the November
17 meeting in their lawsuit.
     On December 21, 2006, the McKay faction of the EDF board filed an ex
parte application for appointment of receivership to neutralize the Brown
faction, who were making day-to-day decisions about the operation of the
school. A hearing before Judge Louis P. Etcheverry of the Kern County
Superior Court was scheduled for January 31, 2007. According to Wonderley,
failure of legal counsel for the Brown faction to file responses caused the
hearing to be continued to February 8.
     On February 8 Judge Etcheverry issued an Order for Appointment of
Receiver and Preliminary Injunction in favor of the requests that the McKay
faction had made to the court. In summary Judge Etcheverry ruled that
McKay's retirement as executive director did not operate to remove her from
the EDF board. The judge also confirmed the composition of the EDF board,
which included Wonderley as a board member, repudiating the EDF board's
actions of November 17, 2006. Finally, Judge Etcheverry placed EDF in the
hands of a receiver to evaluate what was needed to make the organization
functional.
     On February 21, 2007, Judge Etcheverry signed the official order
appointing Joey Etienne as EDF receiver. Wonderley reports that on the same
day Brown attempted to convene another EDF board meeting at which she
asserted her entitlement to a salary as executive director. Wonderley says
that she was again not given notice of this meeting. Receiver Etienne
confirms that he had to suspend Brown's EDF salary during the
organization's receivership.
     Etienne submitted his recommendations to the court on the future of
EDF on May 8, 2007. He recommended that the organization headquartered in
California be dissolved and that its assets be transferred to the Eye Dog
Foundation of Arizona created by McKay to manage some minor school matters,
which for all practical purposes existed on paper and had performed few
actual services. Because of the deadlocked board Etienne suggested that a
diverse group of Arizona advisors work with a nonprofit manager to create a
new board and establish a reconstituted foundation within the existing
framework of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Eye Dog
Foundation of Arizona. Finally, he recommended that he oversee the EDF
dissolution until a smooth transition to the Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona
could be achieved.
     On May 16, 2007, Judge Etcheverry entered a default judgment in favor
of the McKay faction of the EDF board. On June 11 the receiver's report was
accepted, but for reasons that remain unclear the case was transferred to
Judge Palmer of the Kern County Superior Court. Taking the opportunity to
persuade a different judge before Judge Etcheverry's default judgment was
officially registered, counsel for the Brown faction successfully argued
before Judge Palmer on July 11, 2007, to have the original default judgment
set aside. Several days later, on July 20, McKay unexpectedly died.
     Following McKay's death, the substantive grounds for the original
lawsuit no longer existed, so the impasse on the EDF board was broken. In
view of these developments, Judge Palmer directed the parties to settle at
a hearing on August 16. The court directed that the settlement should
relieve the receiver of his duties at a hearing on September 6 and that
control of the foundation should be passed back to the school's board. The
board was directed to replace McKay on the board in accordance with EDF's
bylaws.
     It appears that an unusual set of circumstances conspired to snatch a
legal victory on the merits of the case from the McKay faction of the EDF
board. Wonderley reports that the Brown faction quickly capitalized on
these developments and scheduled a board meeting for September 25. A quorum
was present. The EDF board moved to reinstate Brown as the school's
executive director, affirming its confidence in her by ratifying all the
actions she had tried to take during the past year. Jerome Washington and
Christopher Uboma, candidates supportive of Brown, were elected to the
board. Persuaded that she could no longer provide accountable oversight for
EDF and not wanting to be responsible for future decisions taken by the
Brown-dominated board, Wonderley tendered her resignation at the conclusion
of the September 25 meeting.
     In reviewing Brown's performance as EDF's executive director, we have
learned that three successive directors of training and most of their
support staff have left the school since September 2007. Manny Gonzales,
EDF director of training from February 11, 2006 to September 5, 2007, said
that he left a job and program he loved because of the micromanaging
harassment he received at Brown's hands. Specifically he said, "Gwen was
disrespectful of staff. She made unfounded and outlandish accusations
towards us. She was ignorant when it came to knowledge of guide dog
practices. She had no experience in assessing the O&M skills of blind
people, but she'd regularly presume to intercept and divert applications
from students. You couldn't reason with her; you couldn't talk to her."
Gonzales is a certified guide dog trainer through the state of California,
and he has a degree from New Zealand's Massey University in orientation and
mobility. Without exception, everybody with whom we spoke for this story
praised Gonzales's competence as a guide dog trainer. In concluding his
interview with us, Gonzales said, "Any self-respecting guide dog trainer
with any sense would now not remain at Eye Dog Foundation. What's happening
under Gwen Brown's leadership is a shame." Patti Savage, a respected puppy
coordinator with EDF from September 2004 through November 2006, grew weary
of working for Brown almost ten months before Gonzales decided to leave.
Among Savage's grievances against Brown were allegations that the acting
executive director interfered with her professional judgment to take dogs
in her care for special medical treatment and that staff were regularly
required to dip into their own pockets for operating cash because Brown
would not provide the needed funds.
     During the almost four months following Gonzales's departure, EDF had
no director of training, certified or otherwise. In the weeks after his
departure, Barbara Kuhns, EDF office administrator hired in July 2007 by
the receiver, and Paula Brown, EDF puppy coordinator, both left their jobs
and temporarily shut the Phoenix facility down. Kuhns said, "For the last
month of our employment, Paula and I would leave work together for fear of
our safety. Gwen was intimidating and created a threatening environment.
She regularly would tell Manny that she had somebody watching him."
According to Kuhns, both she and Savage left EDF still owed some back pay.
Representatives from the EDF volunteer puppy-raiser community told the
Braille Monitor that during this period they received little to no
communication from Brown about what was happening and that all puppy raiser
classes were suspended without notice.
     Bryan Young was hired to replace Gonzales as director of training on
December 15, 2007. While not certified as a guide dog trainer by
California, Young brought considerable experience, having worked for EDF
for several years in the middle 90s and with several other schools,
including Leader Dogs in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
     Young reported that problems existed for him and the school from the
beginning of his EDF employment. He said that his pay was often late,
sometimes issued on personal EDF checks and occasionally on more
conventional payroll checks. He also reported irregularities with the
deduction of state and Social Security taxes from his pay. Finally, Young
says that he has still not been paid for almost two weeks of work following
his abrupt decision to resign on July 4, 2008.
     Above and beyond these issues, Young told us that Brown tried to
micromanage the school, second guessing and failing to act on his
recommendations to release animals not suitable as guide dogs and refusing
to forward student applications to him when advised that dogs were almost
ready for placement. Additionally, Young said that Brown created
operational difficulties and safety hazards at the school when she took
actions, including canceling dog food deliveries to the campus and
terminating the school's cell phone services, which jeopardized the over-
heating alarm systems in the vans used to transport dogs for off-campus
training. Young explained that he ultimately spent his personal funds to
purchase food for the animals in his care. Both Young and Kuhns told us
that bills from many creditors were paid late or not at all.
     Counsel for Brown and EDF counter that significant administrative
disruptions occurred because of a delay in moving accounts back to the
control of EDF from the receiver, which may have resulted in some bills
being paid late. EDF counsel states that all creditors have been made whole
at this stage or that payments have intentionally not been honored for
cause, including breach of contract or nonperformance. Young says that he
is continuing to try to resolve his pay dispute with EDF, and Wonderley
says that EDF officials are declining to pay McKay's estate her retirement
entitlement.
     According to Young, as executive director Brown cultivated a terrible
and intimidating relationship with the staff. He said that Brown called
Michelle Tenny, puppy raiser coordinator under his charge, at all hours of
the night to let her know "just how replaceable" she was. Finally he
reported that at one stage during his seven-month employment he was
approached by a representative of a company who told him that Brown had
hired his firm to install surveillance equipment on campus. According to
Young, the company representative ultimately said that ethically he
couldn't be part of this bizarre assignment and left the property without
finishing the job.
     According to Young, in April 2008 Executive Director Brown hired Doug
Hunter as Young's supervisor. This relationship was short-lived, though,
because Hunter remained on staff for less than ten days. Young said that
Hunter told him, while being driven to the airport, that he didn't know if
he'd ever come back and that he couldn't get a commitment in writing from
Brown about the terms of his employment.
     Young and Tenny both abruptly resigned their positions with EDF on
Friday, July 4, 2008, when, as Young tells it, Brown was unresponsive to
his repeated requests for authorization to have an EDF dog receive
emergency medical care, which ultimately required surgery. Exasperated and
bewildered by the oppressive and hostile environment that Brown created,
Young said that he and Tenny "had simply put up with enough." In preparing
to close the Phoenix property for the second time in less than a year in
the absence of staff to operate it, Young told the Braille Monitor that he
contacted the volunteer puppy raisers whose dogs were in the school's
kennel to come and collect the animals for safe keeping until new staff
could be identified.
     In early August Brown hired Dexter Morin as EDF director of training.
Since Morin resigned his position on October 5, just as this story was
coming to our attention, we did not have an opportunity to interview him.
     According to DaCoda Whittemore, EDF assistant guide dog trainer and
facilities manager from August 12 to August 26, 2008, and several of the
school's volunteer puppy raisers, Morin, in his early twenties, was
recruited from Noah's Assistance Dogs in Crete, Nebraska, where he had
helped to train perhaps a handful of dogs. Ruth Dutton, an EDF volunteer
puppy trainer, told us that she had been in contact with Morin's former
supervisor, Mike Renner, after being alarmed at Morin's lack of experience,
and was advised that he was dedicated to the profession but was by no means
ready to assume the responsibilities of a lead guide dog trainer. Mike
Renner, director of Noah's Assistance Dogs, told the Braille Monitor that
in fact Morin was associated with his program briefly through the
AmeriCorps Program, but, when funding for this position was terminated, Mr.
Morin continued with the school as a volunteer. Mr. Renner confirmed that
"it would be quite a stretch" to expect Morin to function as director of
training for any reputable guide dog training facility. Denise Warner was
hired as Morin's puppy coordinator, and she remains employed at EDF at this
writing.
     Whittemore's description of her brief tenure at EDF mirrors the
pattern of discontent and concern expressed by Gonzales and Young. "Despite
having eight years of experience in the field of animal behavior science,
it became apparent that I was not going to be allowed to do anything. I
would fax ideas for on-campus improvements, but my communications were
ignored. I was told that I could not discuss anything about internal
operations at Eye Dog Foundation with anybody. I saw no generation or
meaningful preparation of working dogs at all while I was at Eye Dog
Foundation. I would caution those in the public about contributing to this
school without finding out what their money is really being used for. I
decided to leave this part-time job and pay full-time attention to my own
business."
     In response to the concerns of the volunteer puppy-raiser community
and others about the organization's ability to retain qualified staff,
counsel for EDF concede in their letter of October 27, 2008, that retaining
professional personnel is a difficult task. They further acknowledge that
"some turnover" in staff has occurred during the past year, but counsel
contends that the EDF board strive to identify qualified staff and that
currently no key positions are not staffed by competent individuals. This
claim is hard to accept since the only staff present at the Phoenix
property when we tried to tour the facility on Thursday, October 16, 2008,
was Denise Warner, puppy coordinator formerly under Morin, and a man called
Rick, who described himself as a grounds caretaker without any professional
background with service animals. We are unclear whether Warner's role has
changed since Morin's departure; she did claim to be qualified to train
guide dogs during the brief over-the-fence conversation we had with her.
Despite the invitation on the EDF Website to visit the campus, the staff
refused us admittance to the Phoenix property for a tour and instead
referred us to Brown in California to arrange any future visits.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Puppy raiser Wallace Swerkes and his dog Kaiser]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Puppy raiser Alice Wies and Litta]
     EDF has a devoted and passionate volunteer puppy-raiser community of
almost fifty people (spouses and family members included) working with
between twenty-four and twenty-nine dogs, who could potentially be trained
as guide dogs at the school. A puppy raiser agrees to raise a puppy for a
guide dog training facility for the first eighteen to twenty-four months of
its life, working on socializing and other basic skills before returning it
to the school for formal training. Those who undertake this investment of
time, love, and money are special and committed people who genuinely care
about animals and are dedicated to having their dogs matched with a blind
dog handler.
     In investigating this story, we met with puppy raisers of at least
eleven EDF dogs. All of these puppy raisers expressed an abiding desire to
raise their dogs to fulfill their mission as guides for blind people.
Despite (or perhaps because of) this common commitment, all eleven sets of
puppy raisers are resolved not to return their assigned animals to EDF
while they believe the school is unable to train adequately or care safely
for the dogs. Each of these puppy raisers has a compelling personal story
of deceit or promises broken by the EDF administration, but the bottom line
for each is that each is unwilling to jeopardize his or her investment of
time, energy, love, and money by returning a dog to what they believe is an
unsafe and unproductive situation. If circumstances were better at Eye Dog
Foundation or if alternative arrangements for the welfare and training of
the animals could be arranged, each puppy raiser told us that he or she
would gladly relinquish the animal for an objective evaluation and possible
successful training as a guide dog.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Former EDF office administrator and volunteer puppy raiser,
Barbara Kuhns]
     Anna Thomasson, Diana Anderson, Gail Stouthamer, and Barbara Kuhns
have voluntarily assumed leadership on behalf of almost all the EDF puppy
raisers. They told the Braille Monitor that EDF puppy raisers were left to
manage the training of their dogs on their own for the almost four-month
period between the resignation of Gonzales and the hiring of Young in late
2007. They report that the administration gave them no notice of this staff
transition nor any direction about how they were to care for and train
their animals in the interim. Despite being alarmed by this development,
they all agreed to resume the bimonthly puppy raiser classes with Young
once he started working for EDF.
     In addition to the extended interruption in support from EDF during
the autumn of 2007, puppy raisers identified other general concerns during
2008, including frustration that trainer recommendations for release of
dogs deemed unsuitable to guide were not honored expeditiously, worries
that the school was not placing ready dogs with blind candidates, doubts
about the school's ability to care for its animals safely, anger that EDF
stopped providing regular heartworm and tick medications for the animals,
reservations about the low morale and stress of EDF training staff as a
result of their work environment, and annoyance at Executive Director
Brown's refusal to communicate regularly with them about their grievances.
     Following a January 2008 meeting in which Brown did come to Phoenix
to meet with the closely bonded community of EDF puppy raisers, she has
been unwilling to meet with them again, despite written requests that she
do so.
     After Young resigned as director of training in July 2008 and Brown
hired the unqualified Morin to take charge of the program, most of the
puppy raisers decided to stop attending puppy training classes because the
classes would not be effective and could be harmful to the animals. Even
so, puppy raisers continued to request a meeting with Brown to address the
deteriorating safety and training at the school. They say that their
requests were met with silence.
     In early October John Clark, an Arizona attorney that Brown hired to
secure the return of the EDF dogs, started issuing demand letters to most
members of the school's puppy-raiser community, threatening legal action if
the dogs were not returned in five days. Barbara Kuhns points out that the
capacity of the EDF kennels is about twenty, so, if everybody complied with
the request, the school would be unable to care for all of the dogs. At or
about the same time, Morin resigned his position as EDF director of
training, leaving only Denise Warner on campus to care for the dogs. In his
October 5 letter of resignation, Morin advised Brown that he was turning
over the remaining dogs (there were only two or three on campus at the
time) to the puppy raisers since Denise was not at the campus when he
decided to leave. Despite Morin's explanation of this action (an action
that previous trainers had taken when they terminated their EDF
employment), Thomasson and Anderson told us that Brown filed a police
report alleging that the dogs had been stolen from the property. Following
is the text of the demand letter that Clark sent to Anna Thomasson on
behalf of EDF. Since most of the letters were similar, we print this one
mostly to show the tone that the EDF adopted toward its volunteers. In
response we print a representative reply to a similar demand letter from
puppy raiser Gillian Roberts addressed to the EDF's executive director,
which clearly articulates the primary points that all of the puppy raisers
are making:
                                **********
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT AND REGULAR MAIL
Anna Thomasson
Re: The Eye Dog Foundation Puppy Named Nisha
Dear Ms. Thomasson:
     I represent the Eye Dog Foundation (the "Foundation"). Pursuant to
the Puppy Raiser Agreement dated January 20, 2007, you were to provide
foster care for Nisha. A copy of the Agreement is enclosed.
     The Agreement clearly provides that Nisha is the property of the
Foundation. Further, in signing this bailment agreement, you undertook
certain obligations with respect to the puppy and the Foundation. I
understand that you have breached at least two parts of this Agreement. You
have not followed the instructions of the staff, and you have not attended
all the Training Classes.
     DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you immediately return Nisha to the
Foundation at its office at 8252 South 15th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85041. If
you cannot provide transportation for Nisha, call Dexter Morin or Denise
Warner at (602) 276-0051 to arrange transportation.
     Please be aware that you have a fiduciary duty to the Foundation.
Breach of that duty, such as by attempting to convert the dog to your
ownership or as conspiring with others to deprive the Foundation of its
property, could subject you to legal liability.
     You are also directed to return any of the Foundation's equipment
that you borrowed. Nisha and the equipment must be returned within, at the
most, five (5) days from the date of this letter to avoid any further
proceedings.
     If you have any questions regarding this demand letter, please write
me at the address set forth above. Do not discuss your concerns with Dexter
Morin or Denise Warner.
Very truly yours,
John D. Clark
Enclosure
                               ************
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Puppy raiser Gillian Roberts and her dog Noni]
October 4, 2008
Ms. Gwen Brown
Executive Director, Eye Dog Foundation
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT AND REGULAR MAIL
Dear Ms. Brown:
     I am writing as Noni's puppy raiser to notify you that the Eye Dog
Foundation (EDF) is in breach of its puppy raiser agreement with me.
Further, it has become clear from recent actions by EDF and its staff that
EDF cannot currently ensure the safety of the animals under its care. I
provide a remedy acceptable to me at the end of this letter. I would point
out that I am an experienced puppy raiser, having in the past raised dogs
for both Canine Companions for Independence and Guide Dogs for the Blind,
both well established and well respected organizations. Here are the facts
to support my concerns with EDF:
     First: I believe that EDF with its currently constituted board of
directors and staff is unable or unwilling to fulfill its publicly stated
mission of being "dedicated to giving guide dogs to the blind and visually
impaired at absolutely no cost to them" <
http://www.eyedogfoundation.org>.

This mission is also a commitment to the volunteer puppy raisers who pour
love, time, and significant money into the care and preparation of a puppy
that they believe will be destined for that career. EDF has not graduated a
single guide dog team in more than a year, despite the fact that in the
spring of 2008 there were several dogs in the kennel ready to be teamed and
clients available for them.
     Second: EDF has been unable to retain qualified guide dog trainers.
In thirteen months, there has been complete turnover of training center
staff twice. This includes the loss of three fully-qualified guide dog
trainers. The staff currently at the training center is not qualified by
any measure recognized within the guide dog industry to be training these
dogs and is therefore not competent to run a program that will produce
guide dogs that can be safely placed with visually impaired partners.
     Third: The puppy raiser agreement requires me to attend classes once
per month. This implies that EDF will provide those classes and further
that those classes will be conducted by qualified trainers. From mid-
September 2007 to early March 2008, almost six months, EDF failed to
provide classes for the dogs. During the first four months of this period,
at considerable inconvenience to my husband and me, I continued with Noni's
training, including sessions with a number of professional trainers. At any
time that EDF has offered classes, I have eagerly attended in accordance
with our agreement and only missed class for valid reasons. I attended two
sessions with the new staff, during which my only contact was with Denise
Warner, puppy coordinator. It was apparent in those sessions that Ms.
Warner had absolutely no background with service dogs and no understanding
of appropriate training methods. Given that experience, I believe that
continuing training with Ms. Warner would be detrimental to Noni's
development as a guide dog.
     Fourth: EDF has signaled that it intends to unilaterally redefine
what constitutes a release of a dog. In the past, and as understood by the
current puppy raisers, the (qualified) director of training determined
whether a dog was to be released from the program. Despite this
understanding, which is reinforced by consistent past practice and
acknowledged by you, Ms. Brown, some of the puppy raisers have been told
that the rules have changed and that now you, Ms. Brown, and/or the board
must decide whether a dog is to be released from the program. Not only is
it impermissible to unilaterally change the terms of our agreement, but in
addition, to the knowledge of the puppy raisers, neither you, Ms. Brown,
nor any member of the board has the training that would qualify you or them
to determine whether a dog should be released from, or retained, in the
program.
     EDF has given clear indication that it does not intend to honor its
contractual obligation to allow puppy raisers the option to adopt the dog
they raised if ultimately someone (qualified or not) determines their dog
will be released from the program. My agreement states that "if the puppy
needs to have a career change, the first priority will be to place it with
an appropriate service organization. Second priority will be to place the
puppy with original raiser at no cost." In a meeting with approximately
thirty puppy raisers on January 12, 2008, you, Ms. Brown, affirmed our
understanding that we would have first rights to our dogs if they are
released from the program. When we asked for clarification of the puppy
raiser agreement regarding the potential placement with "an appropriate
service organization," you, Ms. Brown, once again assured us that
historically dogs have not been placed with other service organizations,
and they would be returned to us if they are released.
     Recent past conduct underscores EDF's new resistance to returning
released dogs to their puppy raisers. In mid-February, the former director
of training, Bryan Young, signaled that a number of dogs were to be
released from the program, yet four of those dogs were kept in EDF's
kennels for almost five months--until July 5--when they finally were
returned to puppy raiser homes.
     For EDF to direct that these highly intelligent dogs, raised in
family homes and accustomed to daily socialization, not be returned to
puppy raiser homes and instead be kept in a kennel after no longer being
deemed suitable for guide work is unconscionable and demonstrates a lack of
intent to fulfill EDF's contractual obligation to puppy raisers.
     Fifth: It has become clear that the staff at the training center does
not have the experience to control the dogs in their care. I know of one
recent incident in which one of the dogs at the center was sufficiently
injured in a dog fight to require veterinary care. From the information I
have, it is clear that staff inexperience was a major contributing factor.
I could not conscionably return Noni to an unsafe environment, nor do I
believe I would be legally required to do so.
     Sixth: On July 5, 2008, EDF abandoned Noni. She was boarding at the
training center, one of twelve dogs present, when the training staff
resigned and the center abruptly closed down. You, Ms. Brown, had cancelled
food orders for the center on June 30 when the center was out of food,
possibly leaving the dogs, both boarders and dogs which had been returned
to EDF, to starve. It was up to the training staff, acting on their own and
concerned for the dogs' welfare, to purchase food and arrange for care for
them, including one dog which required emergency life-saving surgery. We
were out of state and had to rely on two other puppy raisers to care for
her until we could return.
     I am committed absolutely to Noni's fulfilling her mission as a guide
dog. This is why I became involved in the program at EDF. However, I no
longer believe that EDF can deliver on its commitments, and, perhaps more
importantly, EDF cannot ensure her safety. To resolve this, I request that
EDF release Noni to a nationally recognized guide dog organization, or to
me on the understanding that I will make due diligence to donate her (with
no benefit to me) to an appropriate service dog organization. In either
case I will assume the cost and responsibility of delivering her to that
organization.
                               ************
Sincerely,
Gillian Roberts
CC:
Mr. John D. Clark, Jr, Attorney at Law
                               ************
     Finally, in accordance with a commitment to Clark and the EDF, we
print the following statement from the school about the puppy raisers'
failure to honor the demand letters. Here it is:
                                **********
     1. The Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind is a nonprofit California
corporation that was established, as the name suggests, to provide guide
dogs for the blind. It is authorized to operate in Arizona.
     2. The Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind owns more than twenty-five
puppies that were placed under bailment contracts with parties who were to
raise the puppies, i.e., puppy raisers.
     3. Each of the Contracts clearly states that each of the dogs belong
to the Foundation, and gives no ownership rights whatsoever to any of the
puppy raisers. The puppy raisers merely had the right to raise these
puppies.
     4. The Contract also stipulates that the puppy raisers were required
to comply with the Foundation's directives regarding the puppies.
     5. Last week the Foundation directed each of the puppy raisers in
writing to return the Foundation's puppies to the Foundation within five
days.
     6. It now appears that the puppy raisers are refusing to comply with
the Foundation's directive to return the Foundation's puppies.
     7. The puppy raisers are apparently attempting to raise a number of
specious issues to divert attention away from their clear breaches of the
bailment contracts. None of these issues give the puppy raisers the right
to deprive the Foundation of its puppies, which is what the puppy raisers
are apparently attempting to do.
                                **********
     Seemingly backed into a corner and with no access to legal
representation to fight against this multimillion dollar organization, the
EDF puppy raisers contacted the offices of the Attorneys General in both
Arizona and California. Receiving no satisfactory response from these
authorities, they then approached the Braille Monitor and the local ABC
affiliate in Phoenix to register their concerns and to attract attention to
the issues occurring at the school. Following is the text of the story
found on the Website of the local ABC affiliate in Phoenix that accompanied
the brief video spot that was also produced and aired in early October:
                                **********
     A custody battle is brewing over twenty-five "service dogs in
training" in the Phoenix area. The future service animals are owned by the
Eye Dog Foundation for the Blind, a California-based nonprofit group that
operates a training center in Phoenix. But a large group of volunteers,
foster families that agreed to help raise the dogs, are refusing to return
them.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Puppy raiser Dianna Anderson and her dog Kensi]
     "I couldn't feel comfortable handing this dog back to a foundation
that is not functioning and feel good about it," Diana Anderson said.
Anderson and twenty-five other volunteers entered into agreements with the
foundation to provide the dogs a home and bring them to training sessions
at the foundation's facility in south Phoenix.
     The goal of the foundation is to train the dogs and then place them
with the blind. But volunteers like Eldon Ploetz say the foundation is in
shambles, that dogs are not receiving the necessary training, and they
claim not a single dog has been placed with a blind person in more than a
year. Ploetz and his wife have helped raise and foster Kiesha, a German
shepherd.
     In late September Ploetz received a letter from the Eye Dog
Foundation's attorney stating, "DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE that you immediately
return Kiesha to the Foundation." The letter continues, "I understand that
you have breached at least two parts of this Agreement. You have not
followed the instructions of the staff, and you have not attended all
the Training Classes." Other volunteers received similar letters.
     But the volunteers claim the trainers are not properly certified, and
the ones that have been hired have not stayed on with the foundation.
Additionally, they say the Foundation had been shut down for weeks and they
have neglected the dogs.
     "We understand they cut off the food for the dogs that were in the
kennel," Ploetz said. Ploetz's wife said she would rather go to jail than
give Kiesha back to the foundation.
     "They are valid concerns," said DaCoda Whittemore, a former
operations manager who worked at the foundation's training facility for
only a week. Whittemore said the dogs are "absolutely" receiving better
care with the foster families, "not just because the management isn't
functioning properly, but there's no staff qualified at the foundation at
this point to be able to take and care for these dogs properly." Dexter
Morin, a former trainer at the facility, agreed with Whittemore, submitting
his resignation earlier this month.
     Before leaving, Morin turned over several dogs to the foster families
rather than leaving them alone at the training facility. In his resignation
letter, Morin wrote, "I contacted the puppy raisers to inform them of my
concerns of leaving the dogs on the premises without the guarantee that
they would be attended to." Morin goes on to say, "I in good conscience
turned them over to the puppy raisers for the safe keeping of the dogs."
     The Eye Dog Foundation and its attorney have declined our repeated
requests for an on-camera interview. In a statement to ABC 15, the
Foundation's attorney, John D. Clark, wrote, "The contract clearly states
that each of the dogs belong to the Foundation, and gives no ownership
rights whatsoever to any of the puppy raisers." The letter goes on to state
that "the Foundation directed each of the puppy raisers in writing to
return the Foundation's puppies to the Foundation within five days. It now
appears that the puppy raisers are refusing to comply with the Foundation's
directive."
                                **********
     There you have the ABC story.  In an effort to resolve the impasse
amicably, EDF puppy-raiser leaders Anna Thomasson and Gail Stouthamer
initiated a dialogue with Clark to find a solution to the custody problem
acceptable to all parties. Among the suggestions that the puppy raisers
offered were to turn the dogs over to a functioning guide dog school
equipped to evaluate and train the dogs for guiding service if appropriate.
Optimism about resolution of this matter was briefly high among the puppy
raisers following signs of good-faith conversations with Clark, but he
abruptly ended the settlement talks after receiving a request from the
Braille Monitor to interview his client for this story.
     No further progress on resolving the standoff between concerned puppy
raisers and the foundation has been realized since Clark's retaliatory
measures against the puppy raisers for their decision to alert the Braille
Monitor to this story. Afraid of the financial and legal liability that
they will all face as a result of their collective decision to engage in
this act of civil disobedience in support of producing high-quality guide
dogs for blind consumers and for the welfare of the animals themselves,
puppy-raiser leaders say that they are nevertheless resolved to do the
right thing on principle. The puppy raisers are looking for legal
representation, but to date they have been unsuccessful in finding counsel
willing to advocate for them pro bono.
     Throughout this long ordeal some EDF puppy raisers have reported
feeling varying degrees of intimidation from and fear of Gwen Brown.
Thomasson, for instance, received several unidentified cell phone calls on
October 7, 2008, in which the caller, who Thomasson believes to have been
Brown, said, "Ok, Anna Thomasson. It's me and you, me and you and Barbara
Kuhns. We're going to go for it, okay? Me and you--you and me, okay?" Later
this same week Thomasson received an anonymous large envelope in the mail
which contained letters addressed to Gwen Brown that had been resealed with
tape. Another puppy raiser, who had initially agreed to be interviewed for
this story, called to insist that his name not be used for fear that Brown
or one of her "operatives" would somehow harm his family or the dog that he
had raised. Several sources for this story also report having had
conversations with Brown in which she has made threatening comments like,
"I can't wait until the Lord makes my enemies my footstools" and other
vague but pointed remarks. Finally, Anderson told the Braille Monitor that
she was quite disturbed when Brown ended an unpleasant telephone
conversation with her with the comment, "Oh, so you have children, do you?"
     Several EDF consumers told the Braille Monitor of instances of
nonresponsive or insensitive treatment at Brown's hands. Patricia Kepler of
Oregon said that Brown was unresponsive to the fact that her dog had been
injured on public transportation, and she explained that her dog was
offered no retraining or post-accident evaluation services. Instead, Robert
Torence of the Seeing Eye generously came out to help her work with her
dog. She says that both the Seeing Eye and Guide Dogs for the Blind have
been invaluable to EDF consumers since the school has essentially stopped
functioning. She also cited an instance in which Brown told her simply to
go to Pet Smart when she needed a replacement leash for her guide dog. "Of
course any responsible administrator of a reputable guide dog school knows
better than to recommend that a student use a pet leash for the taxing work
that a service animal performs," Kepler said. Finally, Veronica Elsea of
California told the Braille Monitor that she has been trying to get a guide
dog from EDF since July 2007, and she reports having received the
application only within the last few weeks.
     The final facet of this story involves allegations that Gwen Brown,
on behalf of EDF, attempted to make or made inappropriate withdrawals from
EDF of California and EDF of Arizona bank accounts. As previously reported,
Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona was a distinct entity from Eye Dog Foundation
of California that existed largely to manage minor Arizona-related matters
for the school. According to Eldon Ploetz, EDF puppy raiser and treasurer
of the Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona, Brown was never a member of the
governing board or a financial signatory on bank records of this small
Arizona entity. Ploetz accuses Brown of inappropriately withdrawing ten
thousand dollars from an Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona account, but he
acknowledges that, once the bank realized its error and asked her to return
the funds, she did so. Schiffres, on behalf of Brown and EDF, explains this
incident in his letter of October 27, 2008, as follows:
                                **********
     Ms. Brown did withdraw $10,000 from an Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona
account at Wells Fargo Bank. She went to a Claremont branch of Wells Fargo
and filled out a withdrawal form (in the absence of having any available
checks) and presented appropriate identification. The bank teller (name
unknown) checked the bank's signature card records to confirm Ms. Brown's
authority to make the withdrawal. Ms. Brown advises that the teller
appeared also to have obtained the approval of the bank manager. The
withdrawal was thus approved, and Ms. Brown received $10,000. She used same
to pay counsel on behalf of Eye Dog Foundation for work performed on its
behalf.
     Approximately two weeks later the Wells Fargo branch manager called
Ms. Brown, advising her that she was not shown as a signatory on the
account and requesting that the monies be repaid. Ms. Brown's response was
that he should double-check his records because she was in fact an
authorized signer, as was confirmed by the teller. The manager then
responded that the names on the account were two other board members,
Ms. Wonderley and Mr. Harris, and he claimed Ms. Brown had never been a
signatory on the account.
     Although the bank manager's information that Ms. Brown lacked
authority to make a withdrawal on the subject account was incorrect, rather
than argue the point, Ms. Brown simply took the pragmatic approach. She
used her own personal funds to reimburse the Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona
account at Wells Fargo Bank in response to the Bank's request, thereby to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It was subsequently learned that
the receiver had apparently empowered Wendy Wonderley and Louis Harris to
take over control of that account, and they had presented the bank with
documentation that superseded the bank authorization for Ms. Brown to sign
on the account. This was not revealed to Ms. Brown at the time or to her
counsel; nor was the Bank subsequently informed by Ms. Wonderley or Mr.
Harris, or by the receiver, that upon extinguishing the receivership,
control of the account had reverted to Eye Dog Foundation's board, of which
Ms. Brown was its duly elected executive director. Had either notice been
provided, the entire episode would never have occurred.
                                **********
     In the face of such contradictory information, the Braille Monitor is
unable to verify fully or accurately where the truth in this incident
actually lies, but we have records (minutes and the articles of
incorporation for the Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona) that show that Ms.
Brown was not a member of this organization's governing body. Nevertheless,
no doubt can exist that, while the Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona and the
Eye Dog Foundation of California were separate legal entities, these
organizations worked together in an allied cause. Subsequent to the
dissolution of the EDF receivership, Mr. Ploetz reports that Brown, in her
capacity as EDF executive director, has now entirely drained the Eye Dog
Foundation of Arizona bank account and has absorbed its resources into the
Eye Dog Foundation of California operation. Ploetz alleges that Brown had
no right to do this since she has never had anything to do with this
entity. He reports that he filed a criminal complaint with the IRS
regarding Brown's second Eye Dog Foundation of Arizona withdrawal in the
spring of this year. Without resources to operate the Eye Dog Foundation of
Arizona, Ploetz told us that its board dissolved the small Arizona-based
organization in the spring of 2008. In response to this second allegation,
Schiffres said, "Your letter references a pending IRS criminal probe into
Ms. Brown's alleged taking of funds from Eye Dog of Arizona ("EDA")
accounts. We are not aware of any such inquiry. However, we are unaware of
any claimed impropriety regarding said accounts by Ms. Brown. We therefore
must question the accuracy of your information."
     Both Ploetz and Wonderley tell the Braille Monitor that Brown also
attempted inappropriately to withdraw $30,000 from an EDF of California
account, but they both confirm that this attempted transaction was
ultimately blocked by the bank and that these funds were never taken.
Counsel for Ms. Brown, however, contradicts this claim and explains the
incident like this:
                                **********
     Your letter references an attempted withdrawal of funds from Arizona
accounts. The true facts are as follows: As you are presumably aware,
several years ago the Eye Dog Foundation board was provided a statement of
resignation by Lequita McKay, executive director. The resignation was
understood to include her director position and a new executive director--
Ms. Gwen Brown--was voted in. Then Ms. McKay and her supporters on the
board claimed that she did not intend to resign as director, leading to a
board deadlock. This, in turn, led to a lawsuit and the imposition of a
receiver. Following Ms. McKay's death, which mooted the issue of board
deadlock, and the presentation of opposition proof and briefing, the court
held in favor of the Gwen Brown faction of the board and made an order
extinguishing the receivership. Unfortunately, the practical effects of the
suit, receivership, and elimination of the receivership, lasted much
longer. Several months passed during which we were unable to get court
orders signed for the reinstatement of the new board and Ms. Brown. The
result was a major dislocation of the Foundation's business. It is in this
context that this and your other questions must be considered.
     On a date subsequent to the receiver's appointment, Eye Dog
Foundation received a letter from Citibank advising of a maturing six-month
CD. Ms. Brown and another board member, Mr. Hannon, responded by going to
the Citibank branch in Upland with the intention of ascertaining Eye Dog
Foundation's available options for the handling of the CD precisely because
the account was at the time in receivership. They met and spoke to a
Ms. Hong and specifically advised her that the account was subject to the
receivership. Ms. Hong responded that notwithstanding what she was being
told by Ms. Brown and Mr. Hannon, there was "no hold" on the account. She
indicated she would have to contact her home office to obtain further
instructions. Ms. Brown believes that Mr. Hannon signed a document given to
him by Ms. Hong at that time. Ms. Hong stated that the document was needed
in order for her to make the home office inquiry. That was the extent of
the first visit to Citibank, which occurred on a Friday. The following
Monday or Tuesday Ms. Brown had a telephone conversation with Ms. Hong. Ms.
Hong this time advised that the account should have been blocked.
Consequently, Ms. Brown and Mr. Hannon thought the matter was resolved.
They gave Ms. Hong no instructions concerning the maturing CD because, upon
receiving the bank's confirmation that the CD was on hold, meant they had
no power or authority to act with regard to same. There was no attempt to
withdraw $30,000 from the Citibank account.
                               ************
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Litta, EDF puppy in training]
     This is what we know. The Braille Monitor has been careful in
reporting this story to keep our narration to facts or circumstances
confirmed by at least two people. What we personally believe as a result of
our investigation, however, could fill several more pages.
     Blind consumers, oversight authorities, and others interested in the
welfare of guide dogs should understand that the Eye Dog Foundation is
clearly in trouble. They currently have no dog trainers on staff who meet
industry standards for working with guide dogs. The qualified trainers that
they did employ have resigned, citing the hostile and oppressive work
environment created by Executive Director Brown, who seems to know little
about the day-to-day issues of guide dog instruction or practice. The
school has not issued a guide dog to a blind handler in well over a year.
The caring and conscientious EDF volunteer puppy-raising community is so
concerned about the absence of quality training and the general safety of
the dogs that they are engaged in an unprecedented act of civil
disobedience, willingly submitting themselves to legal jeopardy for their
principles. And the EDF governing board (an insular body indeed, in which
its members' contact details are not readily available to the public and
most of its members will not speak about their knowledge of events) is now
merely a rubber stamp for Brown, since all the members who disagreed with
the current administration have died or resigned in frustration. We note
that, to the best of our knowledge, no consumers have ever served on the
EDF board. This is a distressing situation to be sure. Finally, the EDF
operates under a dark shadow while it remains under investigation from the
California Attorney General and the IRS.
     Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) should probably be the watch
phrase for those who have dealings with the Eye Dog Foundation in future.
Only time will tell what will happen with this organization. We sincerely
hope that matters can be resolved. The blind of America can only benefit
from a well-run guide dog school that specializes in the training of German
Shepherds, but at present the prospects for the foundation seem poor.

-- 
-Shane
Blog: http://blind-geek.com/blog/
CoOwner: http://sjtechzone.com
AIM: inhaddict
Skype: chatter8712
MSN: shane at blind-geek.com