[nagdu] Cause for Concern was Naming names

[Tina Thomas]

Hello Everyone- I want to reiterate that I voted no on the unconditional
ownership resolution because of freedom of choice. As I've said, there are
schools in this country that offer unconditional ownership and it is up to
the consumer  to decide what program suits their needs the best. Now, I'll
go back under my rock and work on cagdu business. *smile* Have an awesome
day everyone! Oh and for those of us who are experiencing hot weather, stay
cool and give you dogs water. 
Tina   

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gwizdala
via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:46 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: Marion Gwizdala
Subject: [nagdu] Cause for Concern was Naming names

Dear All,

	I think Susan's story is less about what happened 40 years ago and
more about what could potentially happen now if guide dog training programs
do not grant unconditional ownership upon completion of training. When I sat
on Southeastern Guide dogs' Graduate Advisory Council, I was a lone voice
advocating for ownership. Coincidentally, I was the only officially
appointed consumer representative. Though most other members were affiliated
with the ACB, none of them sat on the GAC as an official representative of
that organization. Those affiliated with the ACB, especially one person,
said "We don't want to hear NFB rhetoric in these meetings!" Mike Sergeant
quickly intervened to say that my voice would be heard and asked some
questions about my stand. I was eventually able to help others understand
that my position was not a reflection of the current administration of SEGDI
but a desire to create sound, long-term policies to protect consumers from
interference should a less responsive administration be seated in the
future. During the following meeting, the GAC proposed unconditional
ownership upon completion of training.


	Only a few short years later, Mike Sergeant was dismissed and
consumers voiced their dissatisfaction with the decision. We protested
outside the gates of SEGDI and asked to be heard. SEGDI called the Sheriff's
office to make us leave; however, we were on public property and could not
be forced to disband. We have it on excellent authority that SEGDI
videorecorded the protest and created a blacklist of those who expressed
their dissatisfaction. I often wonder what might have happened if we had not
been given ownership of our dogs.

	Though many opposed the resolution concerning ownership, I believe
the opposition was less about the terms of the resolution and more about
loyalty to those programs that do not grant such ownership. Some argue that
the program must have a good reason for their policies, though the only
reason we have been given is that their donors want it. With all due
respect, I don't believe the donors have really weighed in on this nor that
they have the understanding to make such a decision. Others contend it is in
the best interest of the dog; however, those programs transferring ownership
do have processes available to them to protect the dogs from abuse or
neglect without reserving such power and influence over their consumers'
lives.

	I believe the resolution will come up again and, when it does, it
will pass. For the time, though, there are more important issues with which
NAGDU is focused. Also, we will be more apt to make our membership aware of
the instances in which training programs insert themselves without just
cause. I do believe, though, there will always be those who will assert
there must be a good reason and defend the paternalistic attitudes of the
training programs. 

	We would like the programs to comply with our requests for new
policies and will continue to advocate for such policy changes. We will also
continue to educate our members about how such policies are incongruent with
our philosophy and overcome the objections raised. Lastly, we will continue
to press those who have publicly stated they are willing to discuss these
policies but privately tell us they have no interest in doing so. Such was
the case when Christine Benninger, Executive Director of Guide Dogs for the
Blind stated during our 2014 meeting she would discuss this with us. When I
spoke with her on the telephone, she told me GDB had no desire to discuss
this with us and no intention to change their policy. Such unprincipled
behavior demonstrates lack of integrity and is cause for concern.

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Debby Phillips
via nagdu
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:44 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users;
nagdu at nfbnet.org
Cc: Debby Phillips
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Naming names

Just a thought about names.  If I went to a great restaurant, but it was
forty years ago, I probably wouldn't share the name, because 1.  the
restaurant might not even be there.  2.  If the restaurant still exists, it
might not be the same great place.  
So why would I share a bad experience with an instructor that I had forty
years ago? I admit that I have done so, but hopefully not publicly as in
email.  If I have, I apologize.  It's not fair 
to that person.    Debby and Nova

_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net


_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/judotina48kg%40gmail.com