[NFBMT] revised minutes from January 2018 chapter meeting of Treasure State At-Large NFB of Montana

Wed Feb 7 18:04:27 UTC 2018

Here are the Minutes for the January 11, 2018 Treasure State At-large
chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Montana.

Revised, only slightly, re-submitted by RJ, chapter president.

11 in Attendance

Rik James, Chapter President 

Travis and Denise Moses, Corvallis, MT (Travis, chpater Vice President)

Bruce and Joy Breslauer, Great Falls, MT (Joy, chapter Secretary)

Harold and Sheila Leigland, Great Falls, MT 

Jim and Dar Aldrich, Billings, MT

Jim Marks, Helena, MT

Robert Jaquiss, Missoula, MT

The January 11 campfire meeting of the Treasure State At Large Chapter was
called to order by President Rik James at approximately 6:05 P.M. with
eleven in attendance.

The December meeting minutes had previously been distributed to the
membership.

The treasurer's report was assumed to be $123.00 as usual. Treasurer Linda
Hurlock was unable to attend.

The Montana affiliate is planning our first Bell Academy for kids ages 4-12
June 11-22 in Missoula.  A training seminar will be held January 19-21 in
Missoula and facilitated by Carla McQuillan, NFB of Oregon President.  We
have located a hotel with a free Continental breakfast in which to hold the
seminar, and we will visit the church where we plan to hold the Bell
Academy.  Bell stands for Braille Enrichment for Literacy and Learning.

We discussed the NFB and its changing influence, and how it has worked with
and sometimes against institutes and agencies that teach Braille and
blindness skills, some of which are community based, some are state run, and
some take care of the blind practically from cradle to grave.  We also
discussed how the blindness community has changed as the causes of blindness
have changed, and how blindness now often presents with other disabilities.
the United States has also become a more diverse country culturally and
linguistically.  Some of us who grew up in other states are familiar with
such agencies as the Braille Institute of America, the Lighthouse for the
Blind, and the Foundation for the Junior Blind.  We discussed the importance
of introducing kids at an early age to the NFB's positive philosophy of
blindness and the possibilities it holds for them.  

We are also looking forward to the Washington Seminar, which Travis and I
will attend.

Pasted below are the informational legislative fact sheets from the seminar.

It contains a detailed look at issues within the legislation we discussed
with our Montana Congressional representatives.  

We urge all of our members here at home to familiarize yourselves with them,
and help us to advocate support of the agenda items.

There is also a "frequently asked questions" section on the NFB web site.  

You can visit http://www.nfb.org and put 2018 Washington Seminar in the
Search field.

Rik James lamented the loss of Jerry Whittle and Arlene Hill, two longtime
influential Federationists he knew from his time at the Louisiana Center.
He mentioned that after retirement from the Louisiana Center, Jerry Whittle
self-published several novels which are available on Amazon. 

We talked about the accessibility features offered by charter and DirecTV.
Jim Marks explained a bit about the Roku III, which voices the menus on
Charter and makes available Netflix and other subscription streaming
services with audio description.  Some of us have Charter and some have
DirecTV, so we compared and contrasted our experiences with the
accessibility features of each one.  There is also the Amazon Firestick,
which is the Amazon version of a video streaming device that works with
Amazon Echo, and then there is apple TV, which is its own entity.  So
there's a lot out there to choose from and to learn.

Although it wasn't discussed at our chapter meeting, I have become aware of
something called The Listen Factor, which might interest some of you.  You
can either listen to it on your computer or your Victor Stream or other
device.  This is from their web site, http://www.thelistenfactor.com

Here at The Listen Factor, we stream a variety of great media sound tracks
specifically designed for folks who are blind and/or visually impaired
making it difficult to see the TV screen.

Some of our offerings include:

Old Time Radio, including crime/detective, mystery, suspense, westerns,
family, comedy, adventure and Sci-Fi.

TV and movie sound tracks (sound only, no video) both described and
nondescribed, all genres

Music and other special events in conjunction with a partner radio station.

Rik mentioned that he heard on a Cool Blind Tech podcast a review about
something called The Braille Coach.

It is a talking braille learning system.

http://logantech.com/products/braillecoach-plus-braille-label-maker 

It might be for beginning Braille readers, and it is comparatively
expensive.  

Dar mentioned that the long awaited Orbit is finally going to be sold in
2018.  

We discussed the differences between Unified English Braille, which everyone
is using now and which will be taught at the Bell Academy, and standard
English Braille, which most of us grew up with.  Bruce took a course on it
from the Hadley Institute for the Blind, which is another good resource for
learning about technology and other things. http://www.hadley.edu  they also
have a good podcast.

We then discussed hospital stays, bad knees, upcoming knee replacement
operations, and how slippery the sidewalks and roads have been lately.  We
wish everybody a happy, healthy, and safe new year.  This is flu and
pneumonia season.

The meeting was adjourned after 7:00 P.M.  

The next meeting will be Thursday, February 8, 2018. 

Respectfully submitted,

Joy Breslauer, Secretary 

Treasure State At Large Chapter

National Federation of the Blind of Montana 

Live the life you want

The National Federation of the Blind is a community of members and friends
who believe in the hopes and dreams of the nation's blind. Every day we work
together to help blind people live the lives they want. 

### end.

LEGISLATIVE FACT SHEET

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

JANUARY, 2018

1.  Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education Act (S. 2138/H.R.
1772)

Until a market-driven solution for accessible instructional materials is
achieved, blind college students will be denied access to critical course
content.

Technology has fundamentally changed the education system.

The scope of instructional materials used at institutions of higher
education has expanded. Curricular content comes in digital books, PDFs,
webpages, etc., and most of this content is delivered through digital
databases, learning management systems, and applications. The print world is
inherently inaccessible to students with disabilities, but technology offers
the opportunity to expand the circle of participation. Studies have found
that, of the 6.6 million students with disabilities in grades K-12, the
number who go on to pursue postsecondary education is growing.[1] 

Blind students are facing insurmountable barriers to education.

Instead of fulfilling the promise of equal access, technology has created
more problems than the print world ever did. Data show that students with
disabilities face a variety of challenges, including matriculation and
college completion failure,[2] solely because, in the absence of clear
accessibility guidelines, colleges and universities are sticking with the
ad-hoc accommodations model.[3] Currently, schools deploy inaccessible
technology and then modify another version for blind students, usually weeks
or even months into class, creating a "separate-but-equal" landscape with
nearly impenetrable barriers. With only a 17.9 percent employment rate,
compared to 65.3 percent among people without disabilities,[4] students with
disabilities should not be denied access by the innovations that can ensure
full participation.

Institutions of higher education need help to identify accessible material
and comply with nondiscrimination laws.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Titles II and III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act require schools to provide equal access, and in 2010,
the US Departments of Justice and Education clarified that the use of
inaccessible technology is prohibited under these laws.[5] The 2011 Aim
Commission recommended to Congress[6] that accessibility guidelines be
developed for postsecondary instructional materials. In the seven years
since, [7] over a dozen institutions have faced legal action for using
inaccessible technology,[8] and complaints are on the rise. Most litigation
ends with a commitment from the school to embrace accessibility, but that
commitment does little in a vast, uncoordinated higher education market.[9]

Accessibility solutions are available, but guidelines are sorely needed to
stimulate the market.

The Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education Act will bring
together people with disabilities and the higher education, publishing, tech
developing, and manufacturing communities to develop a stakeholder driven
solution to the issue of inaccessible instructional materials. With input
from all relevant stakeholder communities,[10]mainstream accessible
instructional materials can be achieved, benefitting both institutions of
higher education and the students with disabilities they aim to serve.

Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education Act:

Develops accessibility guidelines for instructional materials used in
postsecondary education.

A purpose-based commission is tasked with developing accessibility criteria
for instructional materials and the delivery systems/technologies used to
access those materials. Additionally, the commission is tasked with
developing an annotated list of existing national and international
standards so that schools and developers can identify what makes a product
usable by the blind.

Provides a digital accessibility roadmap for institutions of higher
education.

The guidelines developed by the commission will contain specific technical
and functional criteria that will clearly illustrate how to make educational
technologies usable by the blind and other students with print disabilities.
Such criteria will prove to be beneficial to procurement officers,
informational technology staff, chief technology officers, and other key
personnel at institutions of higher education.

Offers flexibility for schools while reiterating that pre-existing
obligations still apply.

Colleges and universities are permitted to use material that does not
conform to the guidelines as long as equal access laws are still honored.
Conformity with the Aim High guidelines is only one path to compliance;
schools can pursue a different path but in doing so will forfeit the
combined expertise of the relevant stakeholder communities involved in the
development of the Aim High guidelines.

REMOVE BARRIERS TO EQUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM.

2.  Access Technology Affordability Act (S. 732/H.R. 1734)

Increase the availability of access technology and promote affordability of
that technology for blind Americans

Access technology enables blind Americans to participate in today's
connected world.

Although blindness is easily measurable,[1] it affects each person
differently and at different ages. Despite these differences, manufacturers
have designed various tools that enable each blind American to perform tasks
that they were once unable to accomplish themselves due to their disability.
Braille note takers are frequently used in schools, screen reading software
allows workers to check their email at home, and screen magnification
software can help seniors losing vision learn about community activities.
Access technology equips blind Americans to seek employment and stay
employed. For the 58 percent of blind Americans who are not in the labor
market,[2] it is a vehicle that makes possible and increases the chances of
engaging in and securing employment. However, despite this critical need,
public and private entities struggle to meet consumer demand.[3] This leads
to untimely delays in the delivery of crucial technology and ultimately
harms the blind consumer.

The high cost of access technology creates a difficult economic reality.

According to the United States Census Bureau, 72 percent of blind Americans
are either unemployed or underemployed,[4] yet most access technology
continues to range from $1,000 to $6,000. For example, a leading screen
reader is $900, a popular Braille note taker is $5,495, one model of a
refreshable Braille display is $2,795, and a moderately priced Braille
embosser is $3,695. Consequently, most blind Americans do not have
sufficient financial resources needed to purchase these items.[5] These
financial barriers can ultimately lead to a loss of employment, insufficient
education, or even isolation from community activities.

Medical insurance will not cover the cost of access technology.

Current definitions of "medical care," "medical necessity," and "durable
medical equipment" within common insurance policies do not include access
technology. These definitions were adopted in the 1960s when medical care
was viewed primarily as curative and palliative, with little or no
consideration given to increasing an individual's functional status.[6] Many
states' Medicaid programs and individual health insurance plans have adopted
similar definitions and likewise will not cover the cost of access
technology.[7]

Access Technology Affordability Act:

The Access Technology Affordability Act provides a simple solution that will
increase the availability of access technology so that blind Americans can
procure these items for themselves.

It establishes a refundable tax credit for blind Americans in the amount of
$2,500 to be used over a three-year period to offset the cost of access
technology.

Historically, Congress has created similar tax incentives (e.g., Disabled
Access Credit) for business owners required to make accommodations,
including access technology, for employees and patrons with disabilities.

Even though Congress created these tax incentives to increase accessibility
in the community, these incentives are underutilized.[8] Meanwhile, blind
Americans, for the most part, must depend on others to procure access
technology for them.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to meet the access technology needs
of all blind Americans.

Accessibility requires an individualized assessment of one's own skills and
needs. Therefore, blind Americans should be given the opportunity to procure
access technology on their own to ensure that they are receiving the tools
that are most useful for them.

REMOVE FINANCIAL BARRIERS AND INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF ACCESS
TECHNOLOGY.

3.  Oppose the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620)

The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 would undermine the ADA by
significantly eroding equal access protections and progress made over nearly
three decades.

In 1990 the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed with
broad bipartisan support.

After years of advocacy by people with disabilities and extensive
negotiations with the business community, a compromise was reached which
balanced the cost to businesses of accommodating people with disabilities
with the desperate need to eliminate the physical and systemic barriers that
were isolating them from the rest of society and denying them educational,
economic, and employment opportunities. Over twenty-seven years later, while
much still needs to be done, the ADA has tremendously benefitted the blind
and others, with and without disabilities. The blind have more access and
more ability to participate in economic and community life than we have ever
had, while businesses have an expanded customer base, and many
accommodations that benefit people with disabilities also benefit others.
Now, H.R. 620 (and other proposed ADA "notification" or "reform" bills)
threaten to bankrupt the promise of the ADA.[1]

H.R. 620 would eliminate the right to equal access that is guaranteed by the
ADA.

Instead, the bill would require only that a public accommodation show
"substantial progress" toward fixing an access barrier, a standard which has
no clear legal definition. The introduction of this vague standard
disregards the right of people with disabilities to demand an immediate
remedy to an access barrier. Given that this standard is not clearly
defined, a business may be able to create a quick partial remedy to an
access barrier, not a real solution. For the blind, this could mean
continued inaccessibility in online shopping or digital banking platforms,
as well as the inability to maintain the privacy of medical information that
other people have during visits to the doctor's office, or to independently
peruse the menu choices at a restaurant.

H.R. 620 would undermine the ADA by eroding the threat of litigation, and
thereby eliminate a major incentive for compliance.

Under the bill, a covered business need not comply with its existing
obligations under the ADA at all until receiving a detailed letter from a
person with a disability who experienced an access barrier. The business
will then be required only to achieve "substantial progress" in remedying
the barrier to avoid a lawsuit. The result will be that many businesses will
never need to fully comply with the ADA, despite being notified of access
barriers that have been experienced by their potential patrons.

This bill is founded on inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

Proponents of H.R. 620 argue that the bill is necessary because of the
existence of "drive-by lawsuits" designed to exploit Title III of the
ADA.[2] This argument has no researched data behind it and rests entirely on
anecdotes and sensationalized media stories. There is also confusion as to
whether the ADA permits litigants to seek monetary damages under Title III
lawsuits, which it does not.[3]

The Americans with Disabilities Act:

The ADA is already a compromise that is designed to acknowledge the concerns
of the business community.

It explicitly states that any remedy must be "readily achievable" if the
access barrier exists in an establishment that predates passage of the bill
(1990).[4] The "readily achievable" standard considers the difficulty of the
remedy as well as the expense and relationship to the structure of the
establishment in question. In addition to this standard, there are
provisions within Title III that require certain factors to be considered
when determining obligations to undertake Title III remedies, such as the
size of the business and the financial resources available to the
business.[5]

The federal government already provides extensive educational and technical
assistance resources to aid businesses with their ADA compliance
obligations.

The following resources make Section 2 of H.R. 620 redundant:

ten regional ADA centers, funded by a grant from the Department of Health
and Human Services, that provide technical assistance, trainings, and other
resources for businesses;[6]

an ADA hotline for businesses to call, operated by the Department of
Justice;[7] and

an ADA website, containing numerous resources, tools, and information for
businesses.[8]

The Department of Justice already facilitates mediation and alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms.

When the ADA was enacted nearly thirty years ago, Congress encouraged the
use of mediation as a way to resolve disputes. To that end, the Department
of Justice refers ADA disputes to professional mediators specifically
trained in the requirements of the ADA. This mediation is provided at no
charge,[9] making Section 5 of H.R. 620 unnecessary.

CONTINUE SUPPORTING EQUAL ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR BLIND AMERICANS WHILE
ALSO AVOIDING WASTEFUL AND DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

Oppose H.R. 620.

4.  The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons
Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (Marrakesh
Treaty)[1]

An international copyright treaty will give blind Americans access to
millions of published works and improve the distribution of books around the
globe.

Millions of Americans are being denied access to published works.[2]

Despite the ability to convert print books into accessible formats like
Braille, audio, and digital copies, over 95 percent of published works are
unavailable to people with print disabilities.[3] Literacy and equal
participation in society are critical elements of a fulfilling and
independent life, but until uniformity is built into the international
copyright system, blind Americans will be excluded from accessing published
works on terms of equality. A blind student seeking to learn Spanish will
likely struggle to find an accessible format in that language;[4]a work
printed in English may have already been converted into an accessible format
overseas, but because copies are not exchanged across borders, domestic
entities might need to make a duplicate copy or just might deny access
altogether by failing to reproduce the work.

An uncoordinated legal approach prevents the cross-border exchange of
accessible books.

Unlike the United States, where copyright law includes the Chafee Amendment
and other exceptions,[5] roughly two-thirds of the world's nations do not
have domestic copyright laws that permit making copies for the blind,
limiting the number of works available in an accessible format. Moreover,
many countries consider distribution of accessible copies an infringement as
well, and even amongst nations that permit distribution, limitations vary.
Instead of exchanging books across borders, works are needlessly duplicated,
and circulation is significantly limited.

The Marrakesh Treaty was adopted to achieve this goal.

On June 27, 2013, a diplomatic conference convened by the World Intellectual
Property Organization, (WIPO) in Morocco adopted the Marrakesh Treaty with
enthusiastic support from the US delegation. The treaty, signed by the
United States on October 2, 2013, currently has eighty-eight signatories,
has been ratified by thirty-three countries,[6] and has entered into force
as of September 30, 2016.[7]

The Marrakesh Treaty has broad stakeholder support.

Blind people should have full and equal access to all works that enrich
lives, further education, and share critical information; the treaty
balances this priority with the interests of rights holders. WIPO's adoption
of the Marrakesh Treaty was supported by American-based companies,[8]the
international publishing community,[9] legal experts,[10] and blindness
advocates.[11] The treaty will have tangible benefits for all involved. This
is why the Senate must act swiftly to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and why
Congress must pass its associated implementing legislation immediately.

The Marrakesh Treaty calls for contracting parties to provide in their
national copyright laws for a limitation or exception that allows for the:

Reproduction of works by an authorized entity for the purposes of converting
them into accessible format copies exclusively for beneficiary persons.

Distribution of accessible format copies exclusively to beneficiary persons

Import of accessible format copies for the purposes of making them available
domestically

Export of accessible format copies for the purposes of making them available
to a beneficiary person in another country

REMOVE BARRIERS TO ACCESS OF PUBLISHED WORKS.

Support ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty.