[FLAGDU] Southeastern Guide Dogs

Wed Mar 10 23:50:10 UTC 2021

Marion,
Thank you for the article. You clearly state the facts. I loved the
article. It should be published at a national level. thank you for exposing
the problem. Let's advocate and fix it!

On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 9:44 PM Scott Siegel via FLAGDU <flagdu at nfbnet.org>
wrote:

>  Marion, two other thoughts come to mind reading this. Byy calling local
> law enforcement, you have an impartial eyewitness who can go to court and
> give testimony on your behalf, and force the school to try to obtain a
> court order which would also allow the court to see how many times the
> repossession of a dog occurs.
>
>     On Saturday, March 6, 2021, 2:33:19 PM EST, Mike via FLAGDU <
> flagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
>  I experienced  some of these behaviors myself about 5 years ago from
> Southeastern guide dogs! What is stated below is true!
> Mike Bowmer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FLAGDU <flagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala via
> FLAGDU
> Sent: Saturday, March 6, 2021 11:51 AM
> To: NFB of Florida Tampa Chapter List <nfbf-tampa at nfbnet.org>; NFB of
> Florida Internet Mailing List <nfbf-l at nfbnet.org>; flagdu at nfbnet.org;
> nfbf-leaders at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Marion Gwizdala <marion.gwizdala at verizon.net>
> Subject: [FLAGDU] Southeastern Guide Dogs
>
>
>
> 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/deadeyenurse%40att.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/dmalone510%40gmail.com
>

-- 
*Debbie Malone*
*InclusionEducation.com *
*Unlikely Dancer* available on Amazon at
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1945456477