[nagdu] An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers

[Marion Gwizdala]

For your convenience, the folloing 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

 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Message to Fidelco Consumers.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nagdu_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110222/bb142695/attachment.doc>