Saturday, June 16, 2012

An Open Letter to the National Association of the Deaf


The Board of the National Association of the Deaf 
15 Members
The Library Friends Section 
75 Members
The NAD Membership
Unknown Number of Members
The Deaf Community 
Estimated at 35 Million People

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:

In regard to the actions taken by some NAD Board Members named herein, we are filing complaint and notice of intent to sue. The NAD Board, over a course of almost 20 years has actively oppressed, suppressed, and discriminated against the Library Friends Section of the NAD and the Deaf Community at large. We will present matters and evidence relating to the last two years and relative to the current Board.

We are calling for Article 4.14 and 4.13 due process hearings for the named individuals who sit on the NAD Board and we are calling for expulsion of these individuals on the grounds of Personal Conflicts, of Withholding Materially relevant information, of discrimination and of Civil Rights violations.

There is a pattern of behavior on the part of these Board members—and oftentimes the whole Board—where they have acted against the interest of the NAD, its stated Objectives, its Mission Statement, Vision, and its declared theme of “Nothing About Us Without Us”, and more. To wit...

The NAD Board, in its January 2012 Board meeting voted to freeze the accounts of the Sections on the grounds that there was no written policy governing their functions. The The Library Friends Section (LFS) was founded in 1994 by Ms. Alice Hagemeyer, the current LFS Chair. We would only discover this Board action during the April 20, 2012 Board meeting at the NAD Headquarters when Mr. Shane Feldman, the NAD COO, told us that the LFS had been suspended. Later the same day Ms. Margie English, Region I Board Member and LFS liaison, Mr. Sean Gerlis, Region I Board member and Mr. Christopher Wagner, Vice President of the Board would use the same term: “suspended”. Without regard to terminology and According to Article 8.02, only the Council of Representatives (COR) can suspend the Bylaws, of which the Section is a creation.

The actions of the January and April Boards were justified by Mr. Howard Rosenblum, the CEO of the NAD on the grounds that the Board has a fiduciary duty. Article 4.09 clearly states that the powers of the Board are specific to the Operational Funds and Health of the Association. Mr. Rosenblum uses the word fiduciary as some magical thing but in reality “The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary.” (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008) Now, when we speak of the Associations funds the Board has a fiduciary duty to the Associations Operations, where the Association is the beneficiary. Because the funds generated by the Sections do not contribute to nor take from the Associations Operating fund the Board's fiduciary duties to the Sections “are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary” who, in this very instance, are the Sections. The Sections are clearly identified as Organizational members under Article 3.01(e).

The power the Board has over the Sections under either its 501(c)(3) status or its fiduciary duties come into play only when the actions of a Section DO NOT meet the requirements of such. In order to take punitive action against an Organizational Member the Board must have specific and credible evidence, and must follow due process as given in Article 2.03 which clearly states in the very first sentence that The Association shall work with its State Association and Organizational Affiliates through their designated representatives.” At no point in time at or before the January or the April Board meeting were representatives of any Sections called to provide testimony. This is despite the fact that Ms. Hagemeyer and myself were in attendance to both April 2012 meetings.

At the April Board meeting Mr. Gerlis, Ms. English, and Mr. Wagner illegally called Alice Hagemeyer and myself into a private meeting apart from the rest of the Board whereas they gave an ultimatum to the LFS, an ultimatum they had no business nor power to carry out. They offered to pay one invoice request, but that after that we would forfeit our rights to the funds. It is a clear conflict of interest for these people to attempt to muscle, dictate, or otherwise oppress the LFS. It would be at this same meeting that Mr. Gerlis and Mr. Wagner would admit that they heard about the Deaf Cultural Digital Library (DCDL) from Ms. English only 2 or 3 months prior when in fact Ms. English, Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins, president of the NAD and Mr. Rosenblum were privy to communications dating prior to 2011 dealing with the DCDL.

We, Ms. Hagemeyer and myself, on our own and without any support of any kind from the Maryland Association of the Deaf (MDAD) or the NAD (despite extensive communications and appearances before the respective Boards), successfully passed MD HB 390 and MD SB 571 for the creation of a Deaf Cultural Digital Library (DCDL) in the State of Maryland. We made our first presentation to the Maryland Association of Public Library Administrators (MAPLA) in January of 2011 and Governor O'Malley signed the DCDL bill into law on May 22, 2012.

Ms. English, Dr. Scoggins and Mr. Rosenblum willfully, with malice, withheld documents, correspondence, and activities from the Board and the Membership for a period easily exceeding a year. This is inexcusable in any organization, and especially one that touts a theme of “Nothing About Us Without Us,” among others cited herein.

Mr. Rosenblum willfully and deliberately withheld information from the Board regarding matters of the National Deaf History Month (NDHM) and its Ratified Status, that the LFS was negotiating a contract with Gallaudet University for the use of Jean Boutcher's oil painting of Abbe for LFS fund raising purposes, and that there were multiple events associated with the LFS where, for instance, Ms. English, LFS Board Liaison, was given a pass to the ALA Convention in New Orleans and invited to speak in our “Bridging Deaf Cultures in America” series. Also Mr. Rosenblum and Dr. Jack Gannon were specifically invited and featured at library events at the District of Columbia Public Library (DCPL) in December and again in March at the Enoch Pratt Library in Baltimore. Mr. Rosenblum failed to explain to the Board that the LFS was possibly the most active Section at the NAD and that certain members had invested significant personal time and personal finances. This is a material breach.

The Boards continued insistence on control extends to the recent Bylaw motions where the Board and the Bylaws committee have both made motions to go before the COR. The Board cannot make or second a motion, the Bylaws Committee cannot make or second a motion, and neither the Board nor the Bylaws Committee can reject a motion. The NAD Bylaws clearly state in Article § 4.09 “General Duties. The Board of Directors shall have general control of the affairs of the Association between biennial national conferences, during which time they shall consider action on conference recommendations.” This sentence can be read to mean two things: to consider those made by the COR and those made to the COR. Otherwise there is not provision within the Bylaws for the Board or Bylaws Committee to do these things as specified in the Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR).

The Board can make recommendations but that recommendation cannot be seconded because it is not a motion. If that recommendation by the Board is not seconded by a member of the COR in good standing it dies. Neither the Board nor the Bylaws committee can reject a motion, and they rejected my motion regarding Article § 4.16 Chief Executive Officer. “The Board of Directors shall be empowered to appoint a Chief Executive Officer to serve as the chief administrative officer of the Association. The Chief Executive Officer shall report to the President of the Association and shall serve as a non-voting ex-officio member of the Board.” My motion proposed that the language be changed so that the CEO reports to the Board as a whole, not the president. The Board and/or the Bylaws committee has rejected that in a clear power play. The NAD is probably the only corporation in America where the CEO reports to the president, the normal corporate arrangement is for the CEO (or similar) to report to the Board as a whole and to serve at the pleasure of the Board as a whole. These are just a few of many examples where the Board is far and away exceeding its given powers.

The Board, by way of Mr. Michael Berger, has refused to share the list of Delegates. The Board, by way of Mr. Rosenblum and Mr. Feldman has refused to share the NAD Policy Manual of which is mentioned in the Delegate Manual. The Board has used the powers of the Board in an oppressive and dismissive manner. The Delegate Manual is required to be disbursed 30 days prior to the Convention but an easy 90 percent of the deadlines contained within that document have already expired prior to its release, this effectively negates any real value in having this document and is consistent with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

There are additional matters of note where, (1) the Board has taken nearly $20,000 out of the Halex House fund to help compensate Ms. Nancy Bloch, the former CEO of the NAD with a $54,000.00 “parting gift,” (2) gave Ms. Bloch an additional $60,000.00 raise in pay for her final year, where #1 and #2 effectively give her $114,000.00 in total, (3) has actively and deliberately concealed donations made by Kathleen Anderson (Board Minutes January 20, 2012: 2012/20-03: M/S/P - English/Hawk move to strike out the dollar amount and revise the May 2011 board meeting minutes; Kathleen Anderson provided NAD with a large donation on behalf of her family foundation.), and (4) concealed funds received from the Motor City Association of the Deaf (MCAD) in or about 1993. The MCAD was dissolved and its funds, approximating $93,000.00, are now worth nearly a quarter of a million dollars. The NAD has, for years, refused to reveal the actual agreement with the MCAD, refused to reveal accounting for the MCAD and has not shown these sums in any financial reports. It is also notable (5) that the IRS 990 forms the NAD has filed do not show any endowments, and we are aware of several in addition to the recent “Bloch Leadership Award.” It is our understanding that the IRS requires that such endowments be listed.

The sum of the parts in this complaint show a pattern of behavior on the part of the Board where even the Delegate Manual comes into conflict with the Bylaws. The Board and the Bylaws Committee make 8 motions and these motions reveal their motives. Take for example “Form #4” where the Author is the NAD Board of Directors/Bylaws Committee and where the motion is seconded by the NAD Board of Directors/Bylaws Committee and the Bylaw Committee's recommendation is to SUPPORT this proposed amendment. That is like having 'Joe' make a motion, 'Joe' second a motion, and 'Joe' approve a motion, but that's not all. This particular motion is written by the Board to “...advise the Board of the Directors of the Association on specific areas of interest...” This is our complaint exactly. For more than two years we have actively engaged the people in the chain of command at the NAD and they have not shared this information with the rest of the Board or with the Membership. This must be stopped and this must be rectified.

Summary

NAD Bylaw Articles Cited:
  • Whereas 2.02 and 2.03 clearly outline membership and relationships
  • Whereas 3.01 clearly defines LFS (Sections) as an Organizational Membership in 3.01(e) and
  • Whereas 4.09 clearly defines and limits the Powers of the Board, and
  • Whereas 4.10 further defines Duties of the Board and where 4.10(e) applies to Ms. English, and
  • Whereas 5.01(e)(1,5) again clearly identifies LFS as an Organizational Member with more than 20 members and 1 delegate to the COR, and
  • Whereas 8.02 states the bylaws can only be suspended by a 4/5'ths vote of the Council of Representatives (COR), and
  • Whereas the Board has acted in contravention of the Bylaws of the Association as listed herein
  • We Then and Therefore call for a 4.14 and 4.13 due process hearing that should involve those named herein:
    • Mr. Howard A Rosenblum, CEO
    • Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins, President
    • Mr. Christopher D. Wagner, Vice President
    • Ms. Margie A. English, Region I Representative
    • Mr. Sean Gerlis, Region I Representative
    • Mr. Michael Berger, Region II Representative
Charges:
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully concealed materially relevant information from the Board and Membership over more than a years time, and
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully violated 2.03, 4.09, 4.10, 5.01(e) and 8.02 of the Bylaws of the Association by assuming authority that does not exist, and
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully concealed that 2.02, 2.03, 3.01(e), 5.01(e)(1,5), and 8.02 collectively identify the LFS as an Organizational Member, and
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully ignored the Definitions of Responsibility as defined in 2.03, 4.09, 4.10, and 4.10(e)
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully ignored the primary Object of the Association in 2.01, and
  • Whereas these people have deliberately and willfully mislead fellow members of the board and the members of the NAD, a personal conflict of interest in 4.14

We hold that it is proper to call for 4.13 hearings on these individuals.

Written by:
Alec C. McFarlane, NAD/LFS Member and LFS Delegate
Alec.McFarlane@gmail.com
April 20, 2012
Distributed June 14, 2012

Approved by:
Alice L. Hagemeyer, NAD Member and LFS Chair
Albert Berke, NAD/LFS Member and Past NAD Board Member


ABOUT ALEC C. McFARLANE
Alec McFarlane is the Business Manager for Library for Deaf Action (LDA) and Vice-President of the Friends of libraries for Deaf Action (FOLDA), both based in Silver Spring, Maryland, as well as a member of the Administrative Board of ASL Access, Inc., of Virginia.  Mr. McFarlane is a member of the American Library Association (ALA) and is the leader of a Special Interest Group (SIG) at the ALA called "Bridging Deaf Cultures @ Your Library" as well as a member of the NAD and is the Library Friends Section (LFS) delegate to the 2012 NAD Convention.

16 comments:

  1. When I read the open letter to NAD, I decided to check out NAD's January 2012 minutes. I do think the letter writer has valid concerns. Since I am not a lawyer, I will not get into whether or not they have a valid lawsuit.

    Per NAD's bylaws, only COR can suspend the by-laws. Typically CORS meet at the conference.

    Per the January 2012 minutes:

    2012/20-07: M/S/P: Gerlis/McCowin move for NAD to freeze all NAD Sections’ financial expenses, not related to the 2012 NAD conference, until a policy on sections is developed by April 2012.

    2012/20-08: M/S/P: wagner/Gerlis refer Article 5.01 (5) of the NAD Bylaws to the Bylaws Committee to make some revisions in regards to the NAD sections, its financial obligations and operations.

    We have not seen April 2012 minutes, but I am willing to bet that more information about freezing Sections occurred at that meeting.

    Howard Rosenblum apparently tried to iron things out saying NAD has a "fiduciary duty' as an excuse to why they suspended Section's financial expenses which, of course covers LFS.

    To be fair, NAD's side should be taken into account, we have yet to hear from them on this. NAD's 2012 conference should reveal more, I'm sure it's going to be very exciting experience for those that are going.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For those that don't know what COR(s) stand for, they are "council of representatives", aka delegates send by state associations to represent them and they are the ones that have voting powers for officers and have authority to suspend Sections of the by-laws at the conference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Because the funds generated by the Sections do not contribute to nor take from the Associations Operating fund the Board's fiduciary duties to the Sections “are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary” who, in this very instance, are the Sections."

    If the LFS funds don't contribute to or take from the Association's Operating fund, then why was this Section's funds frozen in January by some board members?

    "The NAD Board, in its January 2012 Board meeting voted to freeze the accounts of the Sections on the grounds that there was no written policy governing their functions."

    Not to mention that the funds of other Sections were frozen...

    No written policy governing their functions, meaning what? the functions of the Sections? What makes a Section's functions the board's business, if the Section's funds are separate from the Association's Operating fund?

    Just wondering...

    Ann_C

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All Sections funds were frozen

      Delete
    2. Fair point, we say that the NAD Board has no business in the Sections functions beyond supervision. That supervision as per their 501(c)(3) designation means that they must verify that the moneys are not used for other purposes. We agree there should be a written policy, but that is the work of a committee. This is a shoot first and ask questions later policy that the Board has chosen. Note, again, the LFS has been at the NAD for almost 20 years.

      Delete
    3. In other words, what you're saying is that the NAD board has only the power to verify that a Section's funds aren't used for other purposes, but not the power to freeze Sections' funds. Rosenblum cites "fiduciary duty" of the board in order to freeze the Sections' funds.

      Do the by-laws of the Association allow freezing of the Sections' funds under "fiduciary duty" of the board? The Sections' funds are not part of the Operating fund even, and yet the board has chosen to freeze such funds with no explanation, as you say.

      I can see why an association's board may want to freeze the money, if a Section's fund was found to be used for criminal or personal purposes, or if a Section was using funds on projects that run contrary to the association's mission.

      However, "fiduciary duty" appears to be a catch-all excuse and doesn't really explain anything. The board's action raises more questions than answers about its accountability.

      So far, NAD board members haven't been forthcoming with an explanation, (it's been what, since January?)and the longer they wait, the more they are reinforcing a lack of transparency with its state associations and membership.

      Ann_C

      Delete
    4. Ann, you are fundamentally correct, Howard uses the words "fiduciary duty" as a catch-all phrase and I explain in the letter how this means "for our (LFS) benefit". We were set up for a very specific purpose and our funds are used for that very specific purpose. Certain leaders are trying to criminalize our behavior and we will show how this is a fallacy, a fantasy, and a lie. Exhibit "A" will be Ms. Alice Hagemeyer's near-20 years of selfless service to Library Advocacy for which the NAD has consistently and persistently ignored.

      Delete
  4. Someone needs to find out how deep in the hole NAD is in and share this info out before the conference. Freezing funds is a good way to stop spending the money that's possibly not there in the first place. Actually it looks a lot better on the minutes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The money in Sections accounts are raised by the Sections themselves through membership fees ($5 a year) and other fund raising efforts. This money does not come from the NAD.

      Delete
  5. Alec - u also had many illuminating comments under Octavian's blog at True Biz - perhaps u can consider copying and pasting them here under this blog just so more details are shared and to warehouse the info in one area or add link in the blog entry or via comments? just a suggestion. truly hope all goes well with this.

    peace

    patti

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patti

      I agree, but control over TrueBizMe is Octavian's blog is his alone... I can, obviously, copy and paste and distribute these and I agree these should get wider distribution. I will take your comments to heart and pull some of these together. Also I will be producing a vlog in the short term because a lot of our community needs to see this in ASL.

      Delete
  6. Wow, the NAD just keeps looking worse and worse. Overhaul is needed there, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lawsuit. That's business as usual. Hope this works out in your favor. Thought the core Deaf, with emphasis on capitalization which you used, community comprises 500k-1m people or was that in reference to the at-large deaf/hard-of-hearing/hearing loss/hearing impaired and other similar communities counting 35 million? And how many of the so-called 35 million are truly engaged by the NAD let alone your interests relative to the libraries?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Believe me, Robert, we do not want to sue the NAD but after a years time Howard Rosenblum himself would tell you it's time to sue. I use a capital D once in a while without intending to imply anything, but in reality we are all deaf and our definition of deaf includes "various hearing levels". We are deaf, period.

      We do not like the deaf/hard of hearing or deaf/hoh moniker because it implies two classes. The NAD and in particular Kelby Brick and Howard Rosenblum have made a mistake in codifying two classes of people. Have you ever visited the NFB website (www.nfb.org) for the National Federation of the Blind? They do not have any Hard-of-Seeing people there and they say that all people with "different levels of visual acuity" are defined as blind because it is an equality issue.

      What is equal? We all are.

      Delete
  8. This is from 2010 conference meeting of the board and CORS:

    Priority Code: 2010-PA-GOV-001
    2010-2012 Priority: Deaf Culture and History
    NAD shall change the title heading of the Library Friends Section to a new heading called the Deaf Culture
    and History Section.
    Ranking: 17 (55 votes)
    Vision 2020: Guiding Principles on Language and Attitude

    Would it be safe to say that monies in FLS is automatically in Deaf Culture and History Section? And, does it also mean it involves still, the library portion of LFS? Anyone has any answer to that?

    I've seen some comments in twitter and FB regarding LFS not existing anymore but changed to DC and H section. I wonder, was Hagemeyer or McFarlane at the 2010 conference meeting? Were they aware of the changes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Candy, you can see my prior replies, but yes we were aware of the changes. The NAD used this fancy thing called the "Vision 20/20: Guiding Principles on Language and Attitude" but it is a farce (foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham).

      The problem is that most people, not just deaf people, do not understand the power or purpose of the Library. We have so much information today that people say, what!? the Library? No waaaay. They think that if you put "history" and "culture" that more people will be interested, but I can tell you it hasn't changed our membership rolls one iota.

      Where will you find subjects on History and Culture? At the Library. Sorry to bore you.

      Delete