[Flagdu] An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers

[Toni King]

Hello Marion,

I would like to ask in this letter you speak of posting in the next 
Monitor  about this situation.  Will this be a post by the people who 
have asked for your assistance in this Matter?

 I am a Fidelco dog guide user and you and I did speak on this matter.  
I am one of the handlers you have mention that is very please with my 
guide and so far have had no problem with the school.

I am hoping the post in the NFB monthly newsletter will be these people 
telling their story and not just a letter or article posted to draw 
attention to a private matter between the NAGDU and those handlers and Fidelco.

I am so hoping this situation can be handled in a way to assist those 
who feel they have been wronged and also  in a way not to discredit a 
school that has been around a long time.

I just want a fair and forth right approach taken and to have this 
resolved for the betterment of all.

Sincerely,
Toni King

Original message:
> For your convenience, the following information is attached to this 
> message as a Word document.

> An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers



> February 21, 2011



> Dear Fidelco Consumers,

>             My name is Marion Gwizdala. I am the president of the 
> National Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU), a division of the 
> National Federation of the Blind. I know most of you are aware that 
> NAGDU has been attempting to mediate an issue between one of your 
> fellow consumers and Fidelco Guide Dogs. I have heard from some of you 
> expressing concern about our efforts and I have shared some information 
> with you individually. I am also aware that there has been some 
> discussion on this and other lists questioning why NAGDU and the NFB 
> are involved. I also know that those who have expressed such concerns 
> most likely represent only a fraction of those who have questions. I am 
> writing to you in an effort to help you understand our role and to make 
> you aware of what we have done thus far.

>             In mid November, I was contacted by a Fidelco consumer 
> because her guide dog was repossessed by Fidelco on October 21, 2010, 
> in spite of the fact that she had signed an ownership agreement with 
> Fidelco on April 5, 2010 that transferred ownership after six months. 
> (The six month period ended sixteen days before the repossession 
> occurred.) The consumer reported to me that her guide dog had several 
> behavioral issues when it was received and the training staff at 
> Fidelco was aware of these issues; none of these issues posed any 
> safety risks to the handler and, by following the instructions from the 
> trainers, they were being resolved.

>             At one point during her work, she passed by a neighborhood 
> property that has automatic sprinklers that activated just as they were 
> passing by, startling the dog. The dog began exhibiting apprehension 
> when approaching and passing this property. The dog also began to 
> generalize this apprehension to other places where sprinklers were 
> running, as well as to fountains and infinity pools. The consumer made 
> several calls to Fidelco seeking direction and assistance but the issue 
> persisted. Fidelco trainers finally decided to visit the consumer and 
> promised they would work with her in her community for five days. If 
> the issue was not resolved during this 5-day period, they indicated 
> they might need to bring the dog back to Fidelco for more intensive training.

>             The follow-up training began on October 20. When the 
> instructor arrived for the second day of training, she leashed up the 
> dog, put it in the car, and drove away.

>             Since October 21, the consumer has made numerous attempts 
> to get information about her guide dog. She has written to Eliot 
> Russman, Fidelco's Chief Executive Officer, and has received no reply. 
> She has telephoned Mr. Russman on numerous occasions. Each time she 
> called, she was told "he is in a meeting". Frustrated with Fidelco's 
> lack of response, she contacted the National Center for the blind in 
> Baltimore and was referred to me.

>             I secured a written and signed release of information form 
> from her authorizing Fidelco to speak with me and share information 
> from her file. I made three telephone calls to Eliot Russman at various 
> times of the day over a three-week period and each time I was told "he 
> is in a meeting". I left voice mail messages for him on each call and 
> received email confirmations from him. The first message advised me of 
> the terrible weather they were expecting and that Fidelco would be shut 
> down. In the second message he asserted he "would not and could not 
> discuss any student, past, present, or future" with me. The third 
> message offered me two dates and times we could meet via telephone.

>             I met with Eliot Russman via telephone on January 24, 2011. 
> Julie Gamble, Fidelco's Chief Operating Officer listened in on the 
> call. As I began discussing the issue with Mr. Russman, he advised me 
> he could not discuss the issue due to "privacy and confidentiality". I 
> asked if he had the copy of the Release of Information form the 
> consumer had signed and he advised me it was not adequate, since it was 
> not witnessed nor notarized. I asked if he would discuss the issue if 
> he had such a witnessed, notarized form and he did not answer. I asked 
> if Fidelco had a form that was appropriate and acceptable and again he 
> did not answer, repeatedly asserting issues of privacy and 
> confidentiality. I am certain Mr. Russman had no doubt the consumer had 
> authorized Fidelco to discuss this with me, in light of her numerous 
> attempts to do so herself, and that there are a number of forms in her 
> file bearing her signature and accepted by Fidelco as authentic, none 
> of which were witnessed and notarized.

>             Mr. Russman asked me if I had read the Fidelco ownership 
> agreement. I replied that I had read the agreement and, though I was 
> not an attorney, did not consider it an "ownership agreement". He 
> referred me to "section d, like dog" (his words) that states "Fidelco 
> may repossess the dog in the event I do not comply with this agreement 
> . . . or for any other reason as determined by Fidelco in its sole and 
> absolute discretion."

>             Rather than detail the entire telephone meeting, Suffice it 
> to say that my effort to amicably resolve the situation between this 
> consumer and Fidelco was met with avoidance, red herrings, outright 
> fabrications, and was unfruitful. I will also let you know that I 
> received an email message the following day from Mr. Russman in an 
> apparent attempt to create a less than factual account of the meeting. 
> I replied to him, objecting to his attempt to revise the facts. I wrote 
> to him on January 26, 2011 and stated, "Your unwillingness to discuss 
> {this consumer's} case with me in
> spite of her signed release giving you permission to do so only causes me to
> wonder what you are hiding and your motivation for doing so."

>             On January 29, I disseminated a message seeking other 
> consumers who had been treated in a similarly arbitrary, unjust manner. 
> Within 12 hours of sending this message, I was contacted by three 
> people with similar stories. On February 17, I received a telephone 
> call from someone advising me that she knew of two more people in 
> Florida. In each case, Fidelco removed a guide dog arbitrarily, 
> unjustly, and with no explanation. A more detailed account of all of 
> these issues will appear in the April issue of the Braille Monitor, the 
> magazine of the National Federation of the Blind.

>             I have received several calls from Fidelco consumers in 
> defense of Fidelco. One caller told me he received his second Fidelco 
> guide dog in 2005 and had nothing but praise for them.  I replied that 
> the Fidelco of 2005 is not the Fidelco with which we are dealing today!

>             I want to assure all Fidelco consumers that this is not an 
> anti Fidelco initiative; it is a pro consumer concern. No matter which 
> training program blind people choose, we should have the expectation we 
> will be treated with dignity and respect. If, for some reason, the 
> program needs to take action in respect to a consumer, it should not be 
> arbitrary and "at the sole and absolute discretion" of the agency! I 
> agree that there are cases in which a dog needs to be removed due to 
> neglect, abuse, or safety issues; however, this decision should be 
> based upon objective, real evidence of such issues, not upon 
> conjecture, unfounded concerns, or the whim of someone with no 
> expertise and no accountability.

>             I appreciate your dedication to Fidelco. I, too, am very 
> dedicated to the program from which I received my guide dog. At the 
> same time, if I heard they were treating consumers the way Mr. Russman 
> is treating you, I would be the first to stand up and demand a 
> reasonable explanation and accountability for their actions. I feel I 
> have this right as a consumer.

>             I believe the time of custodial and paternalistic treatment 
> of the blind in the guide dog movement has long passed. We have the 
> right to direct our lives and be free of the type of intimidation we 
> are experiencing from Mr. Russman. I am of the opinion that he is a 
> bully, creating fear in consumers by holding his "sole and absolute 
> discretion" over your heads in the hope you will be too afraid to stand 
> up to him. However, through the power of collective action, we are a 
> strong force that can stand up to his intimidation.

>             There was a time when Fidelco was well respected as an 
> innovator in the guide dog movement. This respect is rapidly eroding. 
> As Fidelco consumers you are their primary stakeholders. As such, you 
> have the right to demand accountability and the power to shape their 
> future. I urge you to join us in resisting the regressive policies and 
> practices that are being employed by the current administration and are 
> contradictory to the vision of Charles and Roberta Kaman, while 
> compromising the confidence of the blind consumer.

>             The National Association of Guide Dog Users will continue 
> to advocate on behalf of the consumers who have requested our 
> assistance. We urge you to join with us, making our voice louder and 
> strengthening our ability to forge a positive direction. I believe the 
> result will be a return to the quality services and sound reputation 
> for which Fidelco is known, while creating progress toward its future 
> growth. If you have any comments, please feel free to write to me. My 
> email address is below my signature.



> Fraternally yours,

> Marion Gwizdala, President

> National Association of Guide Dog Users

> National Federation of the Blind

> President at NAGDU.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/tkk%40samobile.net

-- 
You cannot control other people's feelings, attitudes, and emotions 
relating to you. You can only exert control over yourself. Someone may 
choose to be your enemy or judge.
How you react is your choice.  John-Roger
(From: Relationships: Love, Marriage and Spirit, p. 150-151)

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life 
is either a daring adventure or nothing.
   Helen Keller, The Open Door (1957)

Check out my blog
www.samobile.net/users/tkk/

Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole.
-Roger Caras

Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit 
www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.