[Tall-Corn] FW: Concern regarding IBEIC

Tue Aug 26 02:35:28 UTC 2025

Hello Federation family, I just sent the below email to the Iowa Commission for the Blind members regarding what is happening at the IDB center. I never in a million years thought I would be doing this. I never wanted to be a former director who would criticize a sitting director publicly. Unfortunately the current director did the one thing I can’t help but stand up against and she did it immediately after starting. It is crystal clear that the current director is apparently willing to provide lower quality training to all Iowans to satisfy  her much documented   vendetta against the NFB nationally  and the Louisiana Center for the Blind. I was really hoping she would come in and listen and learn and build relationships, but she is moving swiftly to destroy the center and is leaving a path of pain as she goes. I’m trying not to sound too alarmist, but this is really serious and urgent. The Commission needs to hear from as many Iowans as possible who care about blind people now and in the future before the September 16th Commission meeting where these issues will be  decided. . Please borrow whatever you want from the below. I am happy to help anyone who needs help expressing their thoughts or telling how the center changed their life in writing.. Just give me a call or shoot me an email. I’ve talked many times about how going through the Center saved my life. I can’t stand the thought of some kid like me growing up in a small town in Northwest Iowa with RP being scared and alone and not having the Center to teach me the non-visual skills and self-confidence I needed to thrive.   I will be working up a list of talking points that people can use  To Write letters or speak at the Commission meeting and if you would like a copy, shoot me an email. Please encourage  like minded ICUB friends and your families and unaffiliated folks and any Iowan or former Iowan who believes blind people should be empowered rather than coddled or believes in government transparency and accountability to add their voice to this extremely important fight. There are a number of folks whose jobs are at risk who can’t speak so we need to speak even louder for them.   Thanks much!
From: Emily Wharton <poetgeek at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 at 9:00 PM
To: sara.coleman at blind.state.ia.us <sara.coleman at blind.state.ia.us>, amy.salger at blind.state.ia.us <amy.salger at blind.state.ia.us>, michael.hoenig at blind.state.ia.us <michael.hoenig at blind.state.ia.us>
Subject: Concern regarding IBEIC

Dear Commissioners,

It pains me to write this letter as I had intended to fade into the background after my retirement. However, actions of the current director are imperiling what I would argue is the very heart of the agency. She is also by her own admission  using the exception to policy process to circumvent the policy making authority of the Commission.

The current director is now telling  clients to apply for exceptions to policy to avoid taking certain Center classes or wear sleep shades. Previously, the exception to policy process was that a form was sent to the VR Director, typically the counselor and client would complete this together but a client could do it themselves. the VR Director handled 99% of these. The director  saw copies, but did not get involved unless the client did not like the VR Director's decision and appealed. In accordance with policy and regulation, the director would approve these if there was significant justification. This was informed choice.  I never received a request to alter the Iowa Blindness Empowerment and Independence Center (IBEIC)  training.

Rarely, the appeals involved wanting out of state training, usually to attend The Louisiana Center for the Blind (LCB). I believe there were approximately 3 such requests during my 7.5 years as director. These requests were approved when the clients had sufficiently stated why the LCB program would meet their needs in ways that the Iowa program would not. There might have been one or two requests to attend specialized career training offered at Lions World which were also approved. In my recollection, these requests were not to receive adjustment to blindness (ATB) training but rather to attend specialized customer service or other career skills  training. I do not recall any clients attending Lions World for ATB training during my tenure, however, if there were clients for whom this would have met their career objectives, this training would have been paid for by IDB regardless of cost in alignment with the principles of informed choice.   . Even though out of state ATB  training was exceedingly rare  it was always approved  if the training would best help the client to achieve their vocational goal.

I understand that the NFB of Iowa has made a Chapter 22 request to obtain documentation of the current director’s claim that many clients have attended Lion’s World in previous years. I understand that   this request has  been stone walled by claims that the data is not available in the current system. I was the primary architect of the    data mapping during the system conversion. I know that this data could be obtained either from the current database or from querying the legacy eForce database. The legacy eForce database was being preserved as of 7/17/24, in order to ensure that any deficits in the current database could be remediated or that FOIA requests could be easily provided. Querying the legacy eForce database for Vendor Name "Lion’s World” and Louisiana Center for the Blind”  could list or count the number of authorizations made to that organization for any period of time prior to 3/1/24. These authorizations could then be either grouped by ClientID or CaseID or the query could be designed to count the number of clients receiving this service.  This would   require  no more than 20-30 minutes  to accomplish.

It has ben  suggested by the current director that students did not wish to attend the Iowa Center because they did not want to wear sleep shades. This was not my experience. In reading hundreds of case notes, talking to VR Counselors and Teachers, and talking to clients personally, the greatest barrier was not being willing or able  to leave their family  or work. The VR Director was very supportive of funding child or other care, transportation,  and other things that would support a client in overcoming these barriers, however, the counselors would sometimes lack creativity or energy to make these things happen for the client.  , Some clients had care taking responsibilities that were quite challenging to deal with. There were other issues as well. Some had concerns about being in a city.  A fairly large number did not want to leave a cat or dog. If a counselor or teacher took the time to talk with the client regarding the benefits of sleep shade training and remove the misconceptions that most people have upon hearing about things like wood shop or drop-offs, most people understood the reason for the use of shades and it was not a barrier. I can only assume that this statement, made so soon after arriving in Iowa, was made based on the current directors previous feelings and could not have come from talking to current or former clients, veteran VR teachers and counselors,, ore performing legitimate  research.The current director claims to have done a survey, but only less than a fifth of current clients were shown to have responded and only about 30% of those  had concerns about shades. There is no background given  on what experience or discussion these clients have had regarding sleep shade training. Many years of post-exit surveys have shown the positive impact of sleep shade training in Iowa and many studies have been conducted nationally that demonstrate that structured discovery training using sleep shades leads to better outcomes for VR clients. The regression to a medical model cannot be justified on any pedagogical or outcome based grounds regardless of how much the current director attempts to make it appear new or innovative. . It would, however, create a revolving door that would increase service provision statistics and make the agency look better. This seems at best ethically dubious as it would   make the quality of life for clients significantly worse.

 Approving  an exception to policy that would alter the IBEIC program curriculum or pedagogy would have been extremely unwise and destructive.  There were two  reasons for this. First, this would be a policy change that would alter a core program and this shouldn't be done without Commission approval. Second, this would fundamentally change the nature of the structured discovery program and that would impact other clients. It would change the culture in ways that would reduce the ability of the Center to create an environment that promotes a positive view of blindness and builds belief in the effectiveness of non-visual techniques. An invaluable part of the center program and what makes it most often preferable to itinerant  training, is the container that the community creates. The center is a unique space where blind people can learn to develop, trust, and master non-visual techniques while surrounded by positivity and encouragement and free from the hierarchy of sight. . This is why IDB used to have only internal maintenance staff and continues to put all staff through training to ensure that all of the people in the building would promote and support the center students’ learning of non-visual techniques.    For structured discovery training to be fully effective, a center must create and vigilantly maintain a culture of positivity toward blindness and non-visual techniques. It must enthusiastically use and celebrate braille in all classes. It must say that using a  white cane is completely respectable and not something that people should hide or fold out of sight. It must create a space where people have the support and community to work through their fears and feelings of inferiority or  self-depreciation. Every aspect of the program should remind the student that they should not be ashamed of their blindness and their self-worth is in no way related to the amount of vision they possess.

Creating this environment is hard and delicate work. It takes patience, compassion, dedication, and a constant  modeling of the non-visual techniques. Introducing the teaching of  visual techniques into this environment would at best greatly diminish and more likely destroy it. This has been tried by several inferior ATB programs across the country and has yielded no verifiable benefits. However, if a student wishes to learn in such an environment and it will best meet their career goals, they should most certainly be sent to such a program.

There is no publicly available data to support the creation of a low vision or low vision and non-visual hybrid program within the state of Iowa. However, the Commission could choose to start such a program. This would most logically be located at the campus of the Iowa Educational Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (IESBVI) in Council Bluffs in order to leverage resources and build partnership.  This would still not be cost effective. It would be more fiscally responsible to send clients to any of the dozens of existing  centers that provide these services and have done so for decades.    However, iff the Commission saw fit to spend taxpayer dollars to redesign the wheel, , such a program must be completely separate from the Iowa Blindness Empowerment and Independence Center (IBEIC) in order to keep from destroying the structured discovery training container.

Bringing the students back into the building and introducing the use of visual techniques is currently breaking this container.  The hierarchy of sight is  both directly and indirectly inserting the erroneous idea that visual techniques are more efficient than non-visual techniques. It is also forcing instructors to degrade the quality of their teaching and go against what their training and experience has taught them. This would have been a pedagogical, cultural, and logistical nightmare even if implemented with the greatest forethought and planning. Throwing random exceptions at instructors and expecting them to just figure it out without guidance or procedures is reckless, unprofessional, and cruel.

An exception to policy is made to ensure that an individual client gets what they need to meet their VR goal. It was never meant to be used as a tool to enact the will of the director while avoiding Commission oversight. I believe that it is also unethical to approve an exception to policy that would negatively impact other clients. If a student, as their informed choice, wants training in visual techniques, they can and should attend programs that have experience in teaching these techniques such as VLR in Minnesota. But just as students can't insist that the University of Iowa change its graduation standards, class schedule, or teaching methods, students should not be able to change the graduation requirements, class schedule, or teaching methods of the Iowa Blindness Empowerment and Independence Center.

Just as colleges create and maintain standards, so do training centers.   The Center has used structured discovery methodology because decades of experience and studies have shown it to be the most effective in helping students achieve their fullest employment potential. It is certainly possible to provide the absolute minimum and place clients in jobs that are barely more than sheltered employment, but Iowa has a long tradition of priding itself on empowering clients to achieve their highest potential.

The current Iowa Blindness Empowerment and Independence Center (IBEIC) manual was reviewed by the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) before it was  approved by the Commission. RSA gave no indication that any element was improper  during this review. RSA had no issue with the requirement that students use their cane during evenings and weekends.   The current director's Claim that RSA has told her this is not allowed is suspect at best. It was difficult and time consuming to receive guidance on anything from RSA, even when they were fully staffed. I find it very hard to imagine  that RSA would have made such a pronouncement so quickly and would encourage you to ask for documentation. The entire process of  the IDB RSA review and the mitigation of findings was, as of 7/17/24,  documented in the Managers Stuff folder and more specifically in the quarterly reports I filed; copies of which should be preserved within that folder  and in my emails. My correspondence with our RSA liaisons ,  illustrates many  ongoing requests for review and guidance over the years as would the email of   VR Program Director  Keri Osterhaus,  former CFO Cheri Myers, and BEP Executive Officer Matt Nemmers among others. I know that Commissioner Hoenig will have had experience in this area as well throughout his years of experience on the Commission.

There was a board meeting  when I was director where Commissioner Salger raised concerns regarding the power of the director. I pointed out that all my actions were public information and being questioned by staff and stakeholders constantly and this transparency  was a  significant check to my power. I did point out that the Commission did have the ability to set policy that would constrain my action whenever you found this necessary and this was another significant check on my power. A director will use whatever power they are given to enact their vision. I was certainly no different.  However, the current director is attempting to enact her vision in secret. I fear that this is  because she is aware that it does not align with the values of the agency or blind Iowans. If her actions were all proper and in alignment with the policies and procedures  of the organization, she would have no concern who knew about them.  Instead, it appears that she is attempting to use fear and intimidation to keep her actions secret. As the leadership team and majority of the staff are at will and can be terminated for no cause, it is very easy to make people fear for their jobs.  When the Governor's office told me they intended to put IDB under the Department of Education, they told me I couldn't tell anyone about it. I argued with them for 3 months until they finally decided to leave IDB free standing. During this time, I felt very strongly that stakeholders had a right to know what was going on, but I knew if I said anything, I would risk an adverse outcome. Being held to silence was so painful and it took a huge toll on me. Later when legislation was enacted that made the Governor my direct boss. I would be put in situations where I was being told to do things I thought were fundamentally wrong. I knew that failing to comply or perhaps even arguing would jeopardize my job.  This felt horrible. Being forced to choose between what I believed to be best for clients or the agency and my employment and health insurance was  one of the worst experiences of my life. I never imagined   ordinary staff  within IDB would ever be put in this position. Silence is violence and what happens within a public agency should be public information.

One or more people may eventually  challenge the legality of a gag order within a public agency.  This may or may not cause the current director to change her leadership and public relations tactics. But for now, if public information regarding a tax payer funded agency is not available to the public, that removes one of the vital checks on the director's power. I would ask you to strongly consider using the other check of policy to ensure that your authority as the Commission is maintained. Currently   process and practice do not  align with the policies you have set. In addition to rejecting the proposed Center manual, I would also encourage you to adopt a policy stating that no exceptions to policy involving training at the Iowa Empowerment and Independence Center may be made without Commission approval. I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter and consider its contents. I am happy to discuss any of it with you further or provide any other information I can.

Sincerely,
Emily Wharton
612-669-4627
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/tall-corn_nfbnet.org/attachments/20250826/0b26b80f/attachment.htm>