[NAGDU] Dispute resolution

[Dan Weiner]

I'm definitely with you on this one, Marion. I'm glad nagdu is making
efforts and continues to fight the good fight for full and unfettered
ownership.
You are right, every time the subject comes up we get some emotional appeals
made based on love of school, or some anecdote about how much the schools
help us, or about some unnamed person who supposedly abused their dogs.
And for the record, of course I'm against mistreatment, neglect, and abuse
of guide dogs, I shouldn't even have to say that but just in case the
argument goes that direction.
It's more that I don't consider the guide dog programs an arbiter or to put
it another way, judge and jury.  If you have an accusation against you or
for some reason the school thinks you mishandle something, where is the due
process?

Now wait, I will be told, you are getting a service and so you put up with
the conditions, after all if you don't like the conditions, go somewhere
else?
Well problem is that the conditions in the contracts ou sighted do favor the
agencies, in this case the schools and pretty much absolve them of any
responsibility for anything whereas you the consumer has all the
restrictions put on you.
I think that as we are trying to change what it means to be blind, we, of
course have to fight against policies that any agency or program serving us
has which lowers expectations or rights of blind people.
 
Anyway, I'm sure this conversation will continue and I have to run now but
I'll have more to say, you were all afraid of that?--lol

Yours,
Dan the man
 

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of NAGDU President
via NAGDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 9:45 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: NAGDU President
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Dispute resolution

Tracy,

	The unfortunate part of what you say is that it is true. When we
introduced our resolution last year concerning ownership upon completion of
training, the resolution failed because many people falsely believe a
training program would not remove a dog without cause. This leads to a very
convoluted discussion of what constitutes cause and who has the authority to
assess such cause. Without ownership, a consumer has very little recourse.
Even with ownership, as is the case with Fidelco and Southeastern, the
contracts are so loaded in favor of the program that, I believe, a court
might rule in favor of a consumer should it be contested. Let me share what
I mean.

	In the case of fidelco, their agreement says they transfer
ownership, yet state Fidelco has the right to repossess the dog at any time
at their sole and absolute discretion. Though I am not an attorney, I
believe a court would rule it cannot be both ways. Ownership carries with it
certain rights, one of which is the right to retain possession and not have
that possession interfered with unless there is a legally supported
justification for such a rescission of that ownership and cannot be done
without due process. Therefore, fidelco cannot repossess property at their
sole and absolute discretion, as this would be considered grand larceny un
der the law.

	As for the ownership with Southeastern guide dog, they mandate
retirement at age 10 or 11, I do not remember which. If a consumer chooses
to work their dog after that age, Southeastern has little recourse under the
law. They cannot remove the dog, as this would be considered larceny, as
well. They can repossess the harness but the consumer still has the ability
to purchase another harness and the right to work the dog.

	Those who contend a training program would not remove a dog unjustly
has not been on my end of a telephone call with someone whose dog has been
or is being threatened with removal without cause. Perhaps if they would put
themselves in the places of these consumers or hear the pain I hear when I
tell them there is nothing that can be done because they do not own the dog,
perhaps they would change their minds!



Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala


-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
via NAGDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 8:29 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Cc: Tracy Carcione
Subject: [NAGDU] Dispute resolution

Julie J brought up dispute resolution yesterday, and I think it's an
interesting topic, and one that's often neglected.

I don't remember anything about dispute resolution in the contracts I've
signed, though I may have forgotten stuff.

I do remember signing something that said I can't hold the school
responsible for anything, pretty much.

The biggest dispute I can think of is a school saying a dog must retire or
be repossessed, and the user saying No.  I don't think, with most schools,
the user has any recourse, and I think that's a problem.  It doesn't come up
with TSE, since I own my dog, and, in the end, I say what happens, right or
wrong.

Tracy

 

_______________________________________________
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/dcwein%40dcwein.cnc.net