[Njagdu] [Fwd: [nagdu] An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers]

[Tracy Carcione]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [nagdu] An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers
From:    "Marion Gwizdala" <blind411 at verizon.net>
Date:    Tue, February 22, 2011 12:20 pm
To:      "NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
         blindtlk at nfbnet.org
         "FLAGDU List" <FLAGDU at NFBNET.ORG>
         ""nyagdu"" <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For your convenience, the folloing information is attached to this message
as a Word document.

An Open Letter to Fidelco Consumers



February 21, 2011



Dear Fidelco Consumers,

            My name is Marion Gwizdala. I am the president of the National
Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU), a division of the
National Federation of the Blind. I know most of you are aware
that NAGDU has been attempting to mediate an issue between one
of your fellow consumers and Fidelco Guide Dogs. I have heard
from some of you expressing concern about our efforts and I
have shared some information with you individually. I am also
aware that there has been some discussion on this and other
lists questioning why NAGDU and the NFB are involved. I also
know that those who have expressed such concerns most likely
represent only a fraction of those who have questions. I am
writing to you in an effort to help you understand our role
and to make you aware of what we have done thus far.

            In mid November, I was contacted by a Fidelco consumer because
her guide dog was repossessed by Fidelco on October 21, 2010,
in spite of the fact that she had signed an ownership
agreement with Fidelco on April 5, 2010 that transferred
ownership after six months. (The six month period ended
sixteen days before the repossession occurred.) The consumer
reported to me that her guide dog had several behavioral
issues when it was received and the training staff at Fidelco
was aware of these issues; none of these issues posed any
safety risks to the handler and, by following the instructions
from the trainers, they were being resolved.

            At one point during her work, she passed by a neighborhood
property that has automatic sprinklers that activated just as
they were passing by, startling the dog. The dog began
exhibiting apprehension when approaching and passing this
property. The dog also began to generalize this apprehension
to other places where sprinklers were running, as well as to
fountains and infinity pools. The consumer made several calls
to Fidelco seeking direction and assistance but the issue
persisted. Fidelco trainers finally decided to visit the
consumer and promised they would work with her in her
community for five days. If the issue was not resolved during
this 5-day period, they indicated they might need to bring the
dog back to Fidelco for more intensive training.

            The follow-up training began on October 20. When the
instructor arrived for the second day of training, she leashed
up the dog, put it in the car, and drove away.

            Since October 21, the consumer has made numerous attempts to
get information about her guide dog. She has written to Eliot
Russman, Fidelco's Chief Executive Officer, and has received
no reply. She has telephoned Mr. Russman on numerous
occasions. Each time she called, she was told "he is in a
meeting". Frustrated with Fidelco's lack of response, she
contacted the National Center for the blind in Baltimore and
was referred to me.

            I secured a written and signed release of information form
from her authorizing Fidelco to speak with me and share
information from her file. I made three telephone calls to
Eliot Russman at various times of the day over a three-week
period and each time I was told "he is in a meeting". I left
voice mail messages for him on each call and received email
confirmations from him. The first message advised me of the
terrible weather they were expecting and that Fidelco would be
shut down. In the second message he asserted he "would not and
could not discuss any student, past, present, or future" with
me. The third message offered me two dates and times we could
meet via telephone.

            I met with Eliot Russman via telephone on January 24, 2011.
Julie Gamble, Fidelco's Chief Operating Officer listened in on
the call. As I began discussing the issue with Mr. Russman, he
advised me he could not discuss the issue due to "privacy and
confidentiality". I asked if he had the copy of the Release of
Information form the consumer had signed and he advised me it
was not adequate, since it was not witnessed nor notarized. I
asked if he would discuss the issue if he had such a
witnessed, notarized form and he did not answer. I asked if
Fidelco had a form that was appropriate and acceptable and
again he did not answer, repeatedly asserting issues of
privacy and confidentiality. I am certain Mr. Russman had no
doubt the consumer had authorized Fidelco to discuss this with
me, in light of her numerous attempts to do so herself, and
that there are a number of forms in her file bearing her
signature and accepted by Fidelco as authentic, none of which
were witnessed and notarized.

            Mr. Russman asked me if I had read the Fidelco ownership
agreement. I replied that I had read the agreement and, though
I was not an attorney, did not consider it an "ownership
agreement". He referred me to "section d, like dog" (his
words) that states "Fidelco may repossess the dog in the event
I do not comply with this agreement . . . or for any other
reason as determined by Fidelco in its sole and absolute
discretion."

            Rather than detail the entire telephone meeting, Suffice it to
say that my effort to amicably resolve the situation between
this consumer and Fidelco was met with avoidance, red
herrings, outright fabrications, and was unfruitful. I will
also let you know that I received an email message the
following day from Mr. Russman in an apparent attempt to
create a less than factual account of the meeting. I replied
to him, objecting to his attempt to revise the facts. I wrote
to him on January 26, 2011 and stated, "Your unwillingness to
discuss {this consumer's} case with me in
spite of her signed release giving you permission to do so only causes me to
wonder what you are hiding and your motivation for doing so."

            On January 29, I disseminated a message seeking other
consumers who had been treated in a similarly arbitrary,
unjust manner. Within 12 hours of sending this message, I was
contacted by three people with similar stories. On February
17, I received a telephone call from someone advising me that
she knew of two more people in Florida. In each case, Fidelco
removed a guide dog arbitrarily, unjustly, and with no
explanation. A more detailed account of all of these issues
will appear in the April issue of the Braille Monitor, the
magazine of the National Federation of the Blind.

            I have received several calls from Fidelco consumers in
defense of Fidelco. One caller told me he received his second
Fidelco guide dog in 2005 and had nothing but praise for them.
 I replied that the Fidelco of 2005 is not the Fidelco with
which we are dealing today!

            I want to assure all Fidelco consumers that this is not an
anti Fidelco initiative; it is a pro consumer concern. No
matter which training program blind people choose, we should
have the expectation we will be treated with dignity and
respect. If, for some reason, the program needs to take action
in respect to a consumer, it should not be arbitrary and "at
the sole and absolute discretion" of the agency! I agree that
there are cases in which a dog needs to be removed due to
neglect, abuse, or safety issues; however, this decision
should be based upon objective, real evidence of such issues,
not upon conjecture, unfounded concerns, or the whim of
someone with no expertise and no accountability.

            I appreciate your dedication to Fidelco. I, too, am very
dedicated to the program from which I received my guide dog.
At the same time, if I heard they were treating consumers the
way Mr. Russman is treating you, I would be the first to stand
up and demand a reasonable explanation and accountability for
their actions. I feel I have this right as a consumer.

            I believe the time of custodial and paternalistic treatment of
the blind in the guide dog movement has long passed. We have
the right to direct our lives and be free of the type of
intimidation we are experiencing from Mr. Russman. I am of the
opinion that he is a bully, creating fear in consumers by
holding his "sole and absolute discretion" over your heads in
the hope you will be too afraid to stand up to him. However,
through the power of collective action, we are a strong force
that can stand up to his intimidation.

            There was a time when Fidelco was well respected as an
innovator in the guide dog movement. This respect is rapidly
eroding. As Fidelco consumers you are their primary
stakeholders. As such, you have the right to demand
accountability and the power to shape their future. I urge you
to join us in resisting the regressive policies and practices
that are being employed by the current administration and are
contradictory to the vision of Charles and Roberta Kaman,
while compromising the confidence of the blind consumer.

            The National Association of Guide Dog Users will continue to
advocate on behalf of the consumers who have requested our
assistance. We urge you to join with us, making our voice
louder and strengthening our ability to forge a positive
direction. I believe the result will be a return to the
quality services and sound reputation for which Fidelco is
known, while creating progress toward its future growth. If
you have any comments, please feel free to write to me. My
email address is below my signature.



Fraternally yours,

Marion Gwizdala, President

National Association of Guide Dog Users

National Federation of the Blind

President at NAGDU.ORG


_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/carcione%40access.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Message to Fidelco Consumers.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/njagdu_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110223/61bd1e4c/attachment.doc>