[NAGDU] Ownership comments South east situation

Michael Hingson mike at michaelhingson.com
Wed Jan 18 15:44:30 UTC 2017


Jimmy,

Actually the board and thus the membership was informed that individuals
were presenting a resolution in 2015. The original resolution did not come
from the board but from two people. NAGDU did hear the resolutions at our
first convention meeting that year.

Nagdu is not, as such, a judge nor a jury. We will not get all the facts
about cases where schools remove dogs from their handlers. Nevertheless
there is a pattern, when such cases occur, that seems to show that schools
act in a high-handed way and do not have the best interests of their
graduates at heart. 


Best Regards,


Michael Hingson

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy via NAGDU
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:49 AM
To: National Association of Guide Dog Users Gwizdala <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Jimmy <jimmydagerman80 at gmail.com>
Subject: [NAGDU] Ownership comments South east situation

Regarding the ownership issue, it seems this subject has been going on for a
long time. I've believed that this  has been resented to the resolutions
committee in 2016 and possibly in the past conventions and has not passed.
When the resolution was presented to the resolution committee, the Nagdu
board and its members were not informed that this would be presented to the
resolution committee or given the opportunity to discuss the proposition to
the resolution committee before the convention. I would think if NAGDU would
want to present a resolution, all board members, including all other
members, should have the opportunity to voice their opinions and vote as to
if the majority feel a resolution is needed.
Keep in mind these points. There have only been a few instances of what
happened to the Southeastern graduate. In the other cases, and I am sure it
will be claimed there have been numerous occurrences, we have not been given
all the facts of each instance so that a informed decision or full
understanding is made.Theoretically, one of those instances may of been
justified; but then to say without providing facts on each case that all the
other situations were discriminatory and improper without facts and proof of
each case is not compelling. If you want to claim all the other situations,
we need the facts on those cases as well.As far as the situation in Florida,
we still have not heard indisputable facts as to all aspects of the
situation. What has been presented are assumptions, hear  say,and lack of
indesputable fact. A person should not assume or make an claim without all
of the facts. Unfortunately, the individual ,regardless of the
circumstances, signed documents from someone they did not really know and
did not read the writing. That is a horrible idea.
Next point: This point has been mentioned so many times. As in choosing a
university or place of employment, choosing to rent or lease a home or car,
you do your homework and choose which  program/university, or financial
program works bests for you. If  ownership is important to you and you are
weary of losing your dog, do not go to that school. There are schools that
offer complete ownership. YOu have options. If you don't like it, then you
should consider the $50,000 the school paid and invested in that dog, and I
am sure they will provide you ownership.I understand that some say it is the
whole perspective and precedence of just not being able to own your own
dog.It is assumed that the schools must be undoubtedly not giving ownership
because of low expectations etc.BUt let's do some math. You have a school
that has 12 classes a month with 25 students. This gives you about 300
students you are training and providing dogs to each year. Multiply this by
$50,000 of the total cost of each dog in the program and you get $15
million. SO, my point to consider, if you investing and spending $15 million
a year, you want to make sure the dogs are in good  hands, cared for, and
that your product is being used in such a way the customer is benefiting and
your organization is being reflected positively.Now, my consideration is to
, instead of trying to force a company/organization to change their policy
because you assume they have bad intentions, take a different perspective.
Approach the issue from a different angle. What if we tried to work with the
schools, rather than constantly criticize and ridicule them. Why do you
think  fewer and fewer schools and their representatives attend our meetings
and are not willing to participate? So instead, what if we worked on our
relationships with the schools. Then, propose schools  put into place a
committee or have a universal committee that all the schools implement. This
committee could review and investigate any claims or reports of abuse or
poor treatment of their guide dog.; then, they could report to thee involved
school with the full investigative findings.This may not change all of the
schools policies to give full ownership, but it would put into place a
universal process to ensure just due process and investigation.That way,
there  are no doubts or question if a dog was taken for no reason.
In summary, I think we need to not let our emotions and our own agenda get
in the way of what is factual and true.If there are countless other removals
of dogs from their owners, I want to see the proof of each of those
instances, and not just hearsay. I want numbers and facts.I want better
relationships with the schools.I want us  to consider alternative approaches
to the ownership issues if the body and board feel this is important.More
so, we should consider alternatives to ensuring that due process takes place
when a report is given to a school and not automatically assume the school
is a bad guy trying to take every opportunity to repossess their
dogs.Finally, If one of us invested $15 million a year to a product,  most
of us would not give it away, no questions asked. And it not because we
don't trust our customer. It is because we invested a lot of time and money
into our product and we want what is best for the product and the customer.
The way the dog and client team work and demonstrate themselves reflects on
the blind community, us as federationists, and reflects on the school where
the dog guide came from. This is not a black and white issue. There  are
many facets to this issue. The federation body has spoken as to how they
feel based on the failing of the resolution. But if this issue wants to be
proposed again to the federation  body, the whole Nagdu body, including
board and members, should have an opportunity to voice their opinions and
decide together if we want the issue to go to resolutions once more.That did
not happen in the past, and that is probably part of the reason why the
resolution fell on it's face.Those  are just my thoughts and do not reflect
on the board or the whole body's opinion. As a board member, I think all of
our members should sound out their thoughts.We could also consider putting
together a  accessible poll or survey to see  where the whole  NAGDU body
stands on this issue.    
Phone: 901-483-1515
Personal Email: jimmydagerman80 at gmail.com Refer NFB correspondences to:
secretary at nfb-tn.org

"Blindness never limits- Low expectations do! Live the life you want!"
_______________________________________________
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/mike%40michaelhingson.com





More information about the NAGDU mailing list