[BlindTlk] Southeastern Guide Dogs repossessing Guide Dogs

Sun Mar 7 16:22:51 UTC 2021

On Thursday, march 4, Deanna Miller, one of Southeastern Guide Dogs Field Representatives made an unannounced visit to the home of Rev. Susan Blake, a blind Episcopal priest for the diocese of Orlando, Florida, demanding to see her dog. When Rev. Blake let her in, the representative stated her guide dog “looked about four pounds overweight” and they were removing it. Southeastern’s contract allows them to repossess a dog for abuse, defined by this contract as being overweight. They also told her they had contacted her veterinarian and was told they had not seen the dog since 2018. The representative also stated that this vet said she was behind on her rabies vaccination. Rev. Blake attempted to explain that she had changed vets and her dog was seen by her current vet about one month earlier for a physical and vaccinations. Rev. Blake also attempted to explain that when she saw her current vet, he did not want to give her a vaccination because the dog had an ear infection. Once the infection was cleared, the dog would be vaccinated. Ms. Miller would hear none of it, obviously intent on the repossession. Ms. Miller pulled the leash from Rev. Blake’s hands, loaded her dog into the vehicle, took the leash off of the dog, and handed it back to her, driving off with her guide dog. Rev.Blake was left in her driveway with her dog's empty leash in her hand!

                In less than one year this is the second instance I know about in which Southeastern has removed a dog because they believed it was overweight, without objective evidence, without warning, and without due process. 

	The below essay outlines in detail another incident in which Southeastern Guide Dogs repossessed a dog without warning, without due process, without objective evidence, and without offering the consumer the opportunity to defend himself against this unwarranted, paternalistic, abusive behavior.
This sort of abuse of guide dog consumers must stop and the National Federation of the Blind needs to step up and do something about this!
Southeastern Guide Dogs and Its Paternalistic Behavior 

by Marion Gwizdala

The late congressman John Lewis often said, “When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something…to do something!” As I write this article, I hear the words of John Lewis and this article is the something I am morally obliged to do and say. 

For twelve years, I presided over the National Association of Guide Dog Users, a strong and proud division of the National Federation of the Blind. If you were to ask any active member of NAGDU what the primary focus of my administration was, most would say “Ownership upon completion of training”. We discussed ownership during nearly every meeting and I frequently questioned those training programs with ownership policies other than full and complete ownership after completion of training as to their rationale for such paternalistic policies. Their justifications for these policies were as paternalistic as the policies themselves! 

During one meeting, Julie Unwinn, Fidelco’s Chief Operating Officer, told us their policies are meant to satisfy their donors and blind consumers have no input because we do not pay for their services. At that same meeting, Chris Benninger, the Chief Executive Officer of guide Dogs for the Blind publicly committed to discussing their ownership policy with me. When I followed-up with her a couple weeks later, she told me she had no intention of discussing GDB’s ownership policy. Only four guide dog training programs – Freedom guide dogs, Guide Dog Foundation, Guide Dogs of Texas, and the Seeing Eye – transfer ownership upon completion of training. All other programs either require a waiting period to prove we are worthy or have policies and contracts that are incongruent with true ownership. Fidelco Guide Dogs reserves the right to repossess a dog at any time and for any reason at their sole and absolute discretion. This is ownership?

Throughout my term as president, I received numerous calls from guide dog users maltreated by the programs that serve them. Few had the courage to stand up and, in other inspirational words by John Lewis, “make good trouble”. After all, given the treatment they received by one training program, how could they be certain they would not be retaliated against and treated equally as poorly by the next guide dog program to which they would apply? And who could blame them! When we apply for a guide dog, all applications ask if we have had a guide dog before and, if so, from which program; however, not all guide dog training programs give weight to the recommendation of their colleagues, choosing to make their own objective decisions about who qualifies for training.

Some have had the courage to stand up against such paternalistic, authoritarian, abusive behavior (see “Fidelco Guide Dogs; Dreams of independence become nightmare of misery”; Braille Monitor; April 2011), to exposed this behavior, and went on to receive a guide dog from another program. In the case of the subject of the aforementioned article about Fidelco, she received a dog from the Guide dog foundation which was fully aware of the circumstances of Fidelco’s unethical, immoral behavior.

Southeastern Guide Dogs Inc. is located in Palmetto, Fla. A few days before blind consumers complete their training with their guide dogs, they sign a “Transfer of Ownership” agreement with Southeastern. After three weeks of training with a new dog, realizing the enhanced independence a guide dog provides, and developing an emotional bond with their dog do you think anyone would refuse to sign this agreement and go home without their guide dog? Though Southeastern claims they make their agreement available before we are accepted for training, who would think a guide dog training program would treat their consumers in the manner to which Southeastern asks us to contractually agree? Who would believe that any guide dog training program would assert such control over the property they say we own but they can take away from us at their absolute discretion and without cause or due process? 

There are several clauses within Southeastern Guide Dogs’ agreement that are not congruent with the Transfer of Ownership” this document is titled, such as prohibitions against allowing someone else to work our dogs. My wife and I have worked each other’s dogs and I have let others work mine to see what it’s like; I have even done it in the presence of the founder and former CEO of Southeastern Guide Dogs – Mike Sargeant- and was told how impressed he was that “Louiza went right back to guide dog 101” when working with a novice! What right has anyone to tell us someone else cannot work our dogs or, for that matter, ride our bikes, use our iPhone, borrow our lawn mower, drive our cars? You get the picture!

Southeastern mandates retirement on or before the dog’s eleventh birthday. Two of my Southeastern Guide Dogs worked to fifteen and thirteen years). Mike Sargeant called my fifteen-year-old Diamond “Superdog”! I asked Susan Wilburn, Director of Admissions and Graduate Services why Southeastern has such an arbitrary retirement age. Her response was that SEGDI wants their dogs “to enjoy their retirement”! What does that even mean? Will their dogs take up a new hobby? Maybe knitting? Perhaps a round of golf every day! What all my dogs enjoy is working. My former 11-year-old healthy, vibrant Diamond or Louiza would not have enjoyed retirement by being left home while I worked another dog when they were quite healthy, capable, and willing to work! Though these mandates are contradictory to the concept of ownership, they are not the issue I am bringing forward. 

Paragraph (5) of Southeastern’s “Transfer of ownership Agreement” gives Southeastern the right to repossess something they say you own for various reasons they consider neglect or abuse. In this paragraph, Southeastern asserts the right to repossess our dogs if they suspect abuse. They need no evidence; they do not need to prove it; they only need to suspect it. Since when do any of us forfeit our rights and priveleges because of a suspicious mind? In this contract, entitled “”Transfer of Ownership”, Southeastern also sets forth their own definition of abuse, defining abuse as an overweight dog, something for which they have the right to take our dogs away! This leads us to an important question: Is this legal? It also brings us to a real-life saga, the likes of which is a shock to the conscience but a story I have heard in many forms several times!

                        In late March, Les Demers (pronounced: de-MARE), a member of the Tampa Bay chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Florida, took his dog to the veterinarian for its annual physical. Mr. Demers knew his dog was overweight but did not realize how seriously overweight it was. It wasn’t because the veterinarian expressed any concern. On the contrary, Mr. Demers was told his dog was healthy and the technician referred to his dog as “chunky”! When Mr. Demers heard the number he knew he had to do something about his dog’s weight! It was not something he was told to do; it was something he felt obliged to do! He immediately discarded the newly purchased bag of high quality food he was feeding and replaced it with one that was lower in calories. He also chose to abstain from giving his dog treats for every good behavior and sometimes just because! Les started walking his dog more and began feeling his own positive effects of better health. In one month, his dog had lost four pounds and was well on its way to a healthier weight. 

On April 22, Mr. Demers received a call from Southeastern Guide Dogs stating they were coming the following day to repossess his dog because it was overweight. Mr. Demers objected, telling them he realized his dog was overweight and shared what he was doing to remediate the issue. Southeastern would hear none of it and threatened Mr. Demers with arrest if he did not comply. The following day, an employee from Southeastern Guide Dogs arrived at Mr. Demers home and demanded the dog. Mr. Demers was asked to sign a form voluntarily returning the dog to Southeastern which he refused to do. With no offer to assist in the remediation of his dog’s weight issue, with no interest in listening to Mr. Demers own attempts to mitigate the issue, and with no due process, Southeastern Guide Dogs forcibly removed Mr. Demers guide Dog.

Les shared a bit of his story during the regular meeting of the Tampa bay Chapter of the NFB of Florida. On June 18, 2020, I sent an email message to Titus Herman, Chief Executive Officer of southeastern Guide dogs, with a signed authorization from Mr. Demers to release his records to me. On June 19, I received a call from Susan Wilburn, Southeastern Guide Dogs’ Director of Admissions and Graduate Services.  Ms. Wilburn stated Southeastern would only release the records of Mr. Demers under sub poena but she would be willing to discuss the issue with me. Since I was getting ready to leave for work, Ms. Wilburn and I scheduled a meeting to talk on June 22. I invited Mr. Demers to this meeting, believing my role was to facilitate communication between Mr. Demers and Southeastern Guide Dogs to resolve the disagreement and return his property. I also invited Merry Schoch, president of the Florida association of guide dog Users and vice president of our tampa bay Chapter, both of which Les is a member. Merry is also a licensed clinical social worker and skilled mediator.  

>From the very beginning of the meeting, Ms. Wilburn was very aggressive. While Mr. Demers was relating his story, Ms. Wilburn interrupted several times saying, “Mr. Demers is lying!” I shared with Ms. Wilburn that, in the interest of order, respect, and dignity, it is the protocol of the National Federation of the Blind to not interrupt a speaker and those wishing to speak say their name and be recognized by the facilitator. Ms. Wilburn stated she was not a member of the NFB and was not bound by this protocol. Throughout the meeting, Ms. Wilburn continually interrupted those who were speaking. At one point in the meeting, Ms. Wilburn stated, “Mr. Demers seems to be suffering from short-term memory loss!”

The attempt to mediate this issue continued to deteriorate. Ms. Wilburn cited a number of contacts Southeastern had with Mr. Demers, sharing the details of what was discussed about his dog’s weight during those contacts. Mr. Demers agreed that there was contact on or around the dates Ms. Wilburn cited; however, Mr. Demers disagreed with the content of the conversations. According to Mr. Demers, the only discussion of his dog’s weight with Southeastern was when someone delivered the larger harness Mr. Demers requested, at which time they cautioned that an overweight dog was susceptible to diabetes. When Ms. Wilburn read the record, one of the items she agreed upon with Mr. Demers was the mention of securing law enforcement intervention should Mr. Demers not comply. Mr. Demers asserts Ms. Wilburn threatened to have him arrested; Ms. Wilburn stated that there was no threat of arrest, simply a statement that law enforcement would be on the scene to intervene. What exactly do you think this means? If I were Mr. Demers, I, too, would interpret that remark as a threat of arrest should compliance not be forthcoming. At least, I might believe the police have the right to forcibly remove my dog. Neither outcome is plausible. Every Southeastern Guide Dogs consumer who has shared with me the details of how Southeastern has repossessed their dogs has told me a strikingly similar story: Southeastern Guide Dogs contacts them by telephone telling them they will be at their residence that day or the following day to repossess their dog. If they do not comply, they will call law enforcement. Upon repossessing the dog, they ask consumers to sign a form stating they have voluntarily returned the dog, though it is seldom voluntary. These tactics are designed to intimidate their blind consumers while providing evidence the surrender was voluntary. What other reason would there be for law enforcement intervention, as they are only charged with enforcing criminal statutes and would refuse to intervene in a civil matter, such as this. The precision and well-rehearsed rhetoric by Southeastern Guide Dogs also leads me to believe this sort of precision is the result of frequent practice. 

According to Florida law, “Property of another” means property in which a person has an interest upon which another person is not privileged to infringe without consent, whether or not the other person also has an interest in the property.” 812.012(5) f.s.) According to the agreement Mr. Demers signed, Southeastern transferred ownership of the dog to him. Even if we agree Southeastern has an interest in the dog, this law is very clear that Southeastern does not have the right to infringe upon Mr. Demers right to possess his property without Mr. Demers Consent which he clearly did not give as evidenced by his refusal to sign Southeastern’s voluntary surrender form. Florida law further states, “A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.” 812.014(1) f.s.) since Southeastern has deprived Mr. Demers of his property and has appropriated the property to their own use, apparently selling it to another for $5,000 ( <https://www.guidedogs.org/public-adoption/> https://www.guidedogs.org/public-adoption/) , Southeastern has committed theft and has sold stolen property, third degree felonies in the state of Florida. 813.014(b)(1) f.s.) 

I attempted to contact the chair of the board of directors of Southeastern Guide Dogs, Ray bishop, but was unable to find any contact information for him. When I asked Southeastern for that information, I was told to send any correspondence I had for Mr. Bishop to Titus Herman, Southeastern’s chief executive officer. I was told that, if Mr. Herman felt it was appropriate, he would forward it on to Mr. Bishop. Unwilling to have important correspondence filtered through a third party with an interest in suppressing such information and not know for sure if it reached Mr. Bishop, I searched for the contact information of another board member, intending to ask this person to distribute the correspondence to the rest of the board. I found the contact information of the secretary of Southeastern’s board of directors, John Compton, an attorney in Sarasota. On July 28 I sent an email message to Mr. Compton outlining our concerns and requesting an opportunity to discuss this with the board. To date I have received no reply.

Most guide dog training programs seem to believe they have the unilateral right to act with impunity. There are also many blind people who believe such an arrangement is acceptable. After all, the guide dog is a valuable gift the training program has bestowed upon them and they are forever grateful for the independence it provides. Both of these attitudes create an unhealthy paternalistic relationship between the blind person and the program. Neither is congruent with the National Federation of the blind’s belief about the capacity of the blind, the principle of self-determination, nor the fundamental concept of ownership. 

On September 2, Merry Schoch, Les Demers, and I met with Deputy Jeffrey Merry from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Pam Dato, Assistant State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit of Florida’s Felony Division, and Rebecca Schaller, the State Attorney’s Victim Counselor, to file a felony criminal complaint against Southeastern Guide Dogs. We were promised a criminal investigation would be conducted into whether the actions of Southeastern violated Florida’s criminal statutes. 

            In an email message dated January 21, 2021, Deputy Jeffrey Merry stated he “did conduct cursory interviews” with all the parties and found that Southeastern Guide Dogs did not violate Florida statutes concerning grand theft. An official statement from the State Attorney’s Office for the 13th Judicial Circuit stated, ““Our office took Mr. Demers’ concerns seriously from the beginning, bringing the people involved together with law enforcement, our prosecutors, and victim counseling to understand the situation.” I requested the case file from the Hillsborough County Sherrif’s Office and received no response. I made a follow-up telephone call to inquire about why I had not received the file and was told the file appears to be a “request for service” but is otherwise blank. Since the case file is blank, this would certainly point to a superficial investigation by the Hillsborough County sherrif’s Office as affirmed in Deputy Merry’s response to me. There are no notes in the record of the nearly two-hour interview conducted by the Hillsborough County sherrif’s Office and the Assistant State attorney. Similarly, there are no notes reflecting an interview with Southeastern guide dogs. This raises the question as to how seriously the State Attorney’s office took this concern and on what facts their decision was based. 

Though a court of law has not been given the opportunity to weigh in on this case, I believe the court of public opinion can certainly render a verdict. If you believe this sort of behavior is unconscionable, call Southeastern Guide Dogs at (941) 729-5665 and let them know. Southeastern Guide Dogs also subsists on public donation; if you believe what Southeastern does is unethical and immoral, vilating the norms of decent behavior, send your donations to one of the four guide dog training programs that respect their consumers and their dignity. I have listed those programs and their contact information at the end of this article.

If you are a blind person interested in receiving a guide dog, be sure you read the contract before agreeing to undergo training. If you are told the contract is just a legal requirement and the terms are not generally enforced, do not believe this. Find a program that transfers ownership upon completion of training and either has no contract or ensures in writing that only an authority with legal jurisdiction can remove your dog. The programs listed below are the ones that I have confirmed do so. 

What can you do should a training program attempt to repossess your dog? I would encourage you to check your specific state’s statutes to find out how they protect possession of personal property.I would also encourage you to check your training program’s contract to understand under what circumstances they have the right to repossess your dog. 

The other day I received a tweet that said, “I know a joke about possession but I can only remember 9/10 of it!” This is based upon the legal adage, “Possession is 9/10 of the law.” This expression means that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. If a guide dog training program attempts to repossess your dog without cause and without your consent, do not passively submit. At least in the state of Florida, someone, including staff of a guide dog training program, may not take your property without your consent. I doubt it is much different in any other state. Remember that Southeastern attempted to have Les sign a document stating he voluntarily surrendered his dog which he was wise to refuse to do! 

                I have heard that some guide dog training programs contact their blind consumers advising them they are five minutes away and want to see your guide dog. If you are contacted by a training program and they want to visit, you have the right to politely refuse. Thank them for their concern and let them know everything is okay. You may want to say something like, “I appreciate your interest. If I need some follow-up, I will give you a call.” 

It is also a good practice to take what is known as contemporaneous notes. These are notes you make during or shortly after a conversation. Simply write down the date and time, along with the details of your contact. I frequently follow telephone conversations with an email outlining the content of the telephone call and important points I want to be understood. If there is no rebuttal, the other party tacitly accepts the notes as authentic. Similarly, it is also helpful if you send an email to the training program with your request to be left alone. These sorts of writings are usually evidentiary in most states should the program attempt to take legal action against you. Frankly, I have never heard of a training program suing a consumer but that doesn't mean it will never happen. 

If a training program contacts you by a cellular phone, send a text message that you do not need follow-up and will contact them should you do. Once again, written evidence you have asked to be left alone is very valuable. Taking screen shots of the chat helps preserve them from being altered or misunderstood.  

If someone from the guide dog training program shows up unannounced or, as above, says they are in the neighborhood, do not give them access to your dog. Guide dog users have fell for the ruse that they just want to see how the dog is working. Once they have the dog and harness, guide dogs have been loaded up and never seen again! Here, again, is a good time for some hard evidence. If you have an iPhone, simply tell Siri, “Record video”. Siri will open the video camera in a matter of seconds. Press one of the volume keys and you are recording. Again, I am not an attorney but I don’t think there is an expectation of privacy when someone enters your property. As an example, I have a doorbell camera and everyone who passes by my house or comes to my door will be audio and video recorded. Your iPhone is just another device.

                Should your dog truly need some intensive help and needs to return to the training facility and you are willingly handing your dog over, ask for a written statement that the dog will be returned no matter what the outcome unless you decide otherwise. If they are unwilling to offer a written statement, do not surrender your dog. You may likely never see it again!

                If you are threatened with police action if you refuse to allow access to your dog or surrender it, do not be intimidated by this. Our relationship with the training programs is a civil matter and no law enforcement agency will interfere in a civil disagreement. At the same time, it might be good for you to call the police yourself, as the guide dog training program is trespassing and for this the police can remove them!

I believe that the ownership of our guide dogs should be congruent with ownership rights of any property. In other words, no one may deprive us of our right to own and possess our property, including our animals, without due process. Should a training program assert there is a report of abuse and they intend to require you to surrender your dog, refuse to allow this. The only method to require the surrender of a guide dog should be if there is evidence of abuse or neglect as the result of a legitimate investigation by the local animal services department. 

At our annual meeting in 2011, the membership of the National Association of Guide dog Users unanimously endorsed the first-ever Guide Dog consumers’ Bill of rights. You can read this document by visiting < <https://www.nfb.org/sites/www.nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm11/bm1106/bm110609.htm> https://www.nfb.org/sites/www.nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm11/bm1106/bm110609.htm> 

As a guide dog user and advocate for the blind, I am committed to protecting your civil rights and right to possess your guide dog without undue, unwarranted interference by anyone, including a guide dog training program. If you feel you have been maltreated, discriminated against due to your blindness or your choice to use a guide dog, or the intersection of blindness and other characteristics, I want to hear from you. I have tools and resources to resolve most issues and, if I am unable to resolve a particular issue, I can guide you in filing a formal complaint. Please feel free to write or call me for more information. You can reach me at (813) 626-2789 or by email to  <mailto:marion.gwizdala at verizon.net./> marion.gwizdala at verizon.net./

Here are the training programs that provide real ownership upon completion of training.

Freedom Guide Dogs for the Blind

1210 Hardscrabble Road 

Cassville, NY 13318

315-822-5132

Info at FreedomGuideDogs.org

Guide Dog foundation for the Blind

371 East Jericho Turnpike

Smithtown, NY 11787-2976

•631-265-2121

Toll-free: 1-800-548-4337

 <mailto:Info at guideDog.org> Info at guideDog.org

Guide Dogs of Texas

• 11825 West Avenue 

Suite 104 

San Antonio, TX 78216

210-366-4081

800-831-9231

Outreach at GuideDogsofTexas.org

The Seeing Eye

P. O. Box 375

Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

973-539-4425

800-539-4425

Info at SeeingEye.org

_______________________________________________
FLAGDU mailing list
FLAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/flagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for FLAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/flagdu_nfbnet.org/mrmikie273%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
FLAGDU mailing list
FLAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/flagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for FLAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/flagdu_nfbnet.org/marion.gwizdala%40verizon.net

_______________________________________________
FLAGDU mailing list
FLAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/flagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for FLAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/flagdu_nfbnet.org/marion.gwizdala%40verizon.net