[nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy
Dan Weiner
dcwein at dcwein.cnc.net
Fri Jul 1 23:40:04 UTC 2011
Just one minor correction.
The convention in 1994 was in Detroit, I was there.
The Chicago convention was 1995.
Dan W.
-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Lyn Gwizdak
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:39 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Marion for this post!
Maybe you need to hang on to this to paste it into your remeinder of the
policy next year and maybe the folks who complain will finally understand
it.
Have fun - I don't envy you when you have to bust people at the conventions.
Having close to 5,000 people this year! Wow!
Lyn and Landon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
To: "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: [nagdu] Some Perspective on the Policy
> dear All,
> I hope everyone will read this entire post and that it will give a
> little perspective to the NFB policy concerning leaving dogs unattended in
> guest rooms during convention. Please keep in mind that this policy was
> enacted in an effort to resolve some very serious problems the
> organization faced in the past. It is not an arbitrary policy the
> Federation issued to attempt to make life difficult for guide dog users.
> Also, please keep in mind that the NFB Board of Directors is very
> supportive of the National Association of Guide dog Users and its members.
> This year, the NFB will spend about $8500 providing relief areas for our
> guide dogs. This is quite a significant investment! Now, to the purpose of
> this post.
> In order to understand the need for the policy, we need a bit of
> historical perspective. In 1994, the NFB convention was in Chicago, Ill.
> During that convention, there were some very serious problems, as it
> pertained to guide dog handlers. There were more than the average number
> of accidents, partly due to the fact that the area around the hotel had
> very little grass, except for Grant Park, which was swamped with millions
> of people for the Taste of Chicago. In addition to these accidents in the
> public areas of the hotel, several guide dog users left their dogs
> unattended to go to the fireworks in grant Park because they knew their
> dogs were afraid of the noise. A very large number of stressed-out dogs
> carried on well into the night, disrupting other guests staying in the
> hotel. Furthermore, some of these dogs literally destroyed the rooms. The
> long story short, since the guests were unable to pay for the damages, the
> NFB had to cover the cost, which ran well into the thousands of dollars.
> Of course, some will say that the NFB should have required the responsible
> parties to pay the damages, but you know the old adage of getting blood
> from a turnip! If the NFB didn't pay the damages, they would have been
> hard-pressed to find another hotel willing to offer us the rates we are
> accustomed to receiving. Even though we did pay the damages, though, word
> travels quickly in the hospitality industry and the NFB was having a
> difficult time finding properties willing to host our conventions and
> negotiating the rates.
> The NFB attempted to assess a surcharge of $25 for each guide dog user,
> but this was met with a great deal of resistance and this plan was
> scrapped very quickly. The resulting compromise was the policy that draws
> so much contention every year.
> I would like to offer a real-life analagy. Most communities have a
> public intoxication law. Basically, this law says that, if you are
> intoxicated and behave in a disorderly fashion, you are going to jail. The
> law is enacted because there was a problem with intoxicated people
> behaving in a disorderly manner. Now, some could argue that it is their
> right to drink if they are over the age of 21 and they would be correct.
> Therefore, they would argue, it is their right to become intoxicated and,
> again, they are right! However, if your public intoxication results in
> behavior the community deems disorderly, impinging on the rights of others
> to be free from such behavior, the police have the right to impose the
> remedies available under the law. at the same time, if one chooses to
> become intoxicated in public and behave themselves, no one really cares.
> It is only when that state of intoxication imposes negative consequences
> on public order that the remedies available are imposed.
> One post implied that I was only agreeing to the policy because it came
> from the leadership. This member is absolutely correct. Policies and laws
> are enacted for the general good of the community in an effort to provide
> remedies for behaviors that negatively impact that community. Barking and
> destructive dogs negatively impact the NFB community and the leadership of
> this community has designed a policy to resolve this issue and provide
> remedies. As a member of this community, you agree to abide by the
> policies or laws that govern that society's behavior or face the
> consequences for their violation. Whether that society is a country,
> state, county, city, place of business, workplace, or the NFB convention,
> there are acceptable behaviors and consequences for unacceptable behavior.
> Anything else is anarchy!
> I reject the notion that this - or any other - policy treats one like a
> child. In fact, what is childish is being intentionally oppositional and
> defiant of societal norms and mores. Remember that it was not too many
> months ago when someone believed he had the right to insult anyone he
> wanted to on this list and no one could do anything about it. How many of
> you rejoiced when it was announced that he was permanently banned from
> subscribing to any of the NFBNET lists? Parenthetically, he telephoned me
> to advise me that he intended to disrupt the NAGDU meeting this year. the
> Board has taken the measure of refusing his membership for conduct
> unbecoming a member. Since only members in good standing can speak on the
> floor, this effectively bars him from disrupting our meetings. Might he do
> so anyway? Perhaps! But there are other remedies available, too!
> I hope you have a better understanding of how this policy came to be
> and the practical issues it addresses. It is not an anti guide dog policy;
> rather, it is meant to prevent a serious issue and maintain order for the
> common good of all concerned. It is unfortunate that such a policy had to
> be implemented to deal with a problem created by a few. Just as most
> people are generally honest, but we have laws against stealing to provide
> remedies for the few that are not, most guide dog users are responsible.
> The policy is to provide remedies for those who are not!
> I hope that everyone has a fantastic convention. I understand that we
> are expecting more than 4000 in Orlando. That means we will most likely
> have close to 500 guide dog teams! I hope many of you will join us for the
> NAGDU meetings on Sunday & Tuesday in the Panzacola H-3 ballroom at 7:00
> pm! I'll see you then or here on the list afterward! Have an awesome
> Fourth of july!
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala, President
> National Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU)
> National Federation of the Blind
> 813-626-2789
> President at NAGDU.ORG
> HTTP://WWW.NAGDU.ORG
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/linda.gwizdak%40cox.n
et
_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/dcwein%40dcwein.cnc.n
et
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list