Hi Mike.  I am not trying to have it both ways.  All I am saying is that if 
the national leadership is bound to support a resolution, any resolution, 
then it should go beyond just stating that it has to defend it whether or not 
any leaders have personal differences with it.  Mr. Maurer or anyone else 
should state why we passed it and defend our position as well as our policy, 
and maybe he did; I was not there nor did I hear the exchange of 
correspondences.
If somewhere along the way they see that a mistake was made it should not be 
ashamed to admit it.  After all, we are not perfect and we should admit when 
we make a mistake and not try to cover it up.  
I am glad the Levi Straus ad was phased out as it did represent a clear and 
present danger to dog guide users and their dogs.  
I don't know if the adhock committee still exists, but it was composed of 
several members from R.S.V.A., several from N.F.B. and several more from 
Sagebrush.  If I'm not mistaken, Don Morris and Charles Allen were our 
representatives on that committee.  But I think the very survival of the 
Randolph-shepherd program could depend on what we do within the next few 
years or less.  For starters, I think we should take on this matter of a 
class system between totally blind and partially sighted operators which the 
licensing agencies have created by arbitrarily giving those with partial 
vision the choice locations while totals are given what is left which in most 
cases is nothing.  There are not 2 Randolph-shepherd programs, one for the 
partials and another for the totals; there is only one for all legally blind 
persons, and it should be more than theory that the best locations go to 
those with the best work records.  I think it is past time to take that issue 
on!
Harvey 
--- msged 2.07
---------------