SUPERINTENDENT OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND FORCED OUT: NAC TAKES ANOTHER HIT by Kenneth Jernigan and Barbara Pierce At a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Arkansas Schools for the Deaf and the Blind on September 23, 1994, Leonard Ogburn, Superintendent of the School for the Blind, was forced to resign amid charges and counter-charges of sexual misconduct, nepotism, favoritism, and misuse of school resources. Many of those familiar with the situation at the Arkansas School for the Blind (ASB) say that Ogburn, school alumnus (although he now sees well enough to drive a car) and Superintendent since 1985, ran the place as though it were his personal kingdom. But when, on June 23, 1994, an ASB teacher requested the Pulaski County Prosecutor to issue a warrant for Ogburn's arrest, alleging that he had spanked her several times and threatened to do so again in connection with her annual performance review, the Superintendent's castle began to crumble. In the weeks following the first allegation, at least eight other women came forward with claims of Ogburn's inappropriate comments, pinching, biting, fondling, and spanking. Moreover, accusations of nepotism, widespread favoritism, and misuse of staff time and ASB equipment also began to attract serious media and governmental attention. The five-member Board of Trustees, which governs both the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf, suspended Ogburn with pay on June 24, 1994, pending an investigation; but following their receipt of the police investigator's 328-page report, they voted four to one in September to allow the Superintendent to submit his resignation to be effective October 19. At the same meeting at which Ogburn was allowed to resign instead of being fired in return for his promise not to sue the School, the Board voted to include a $6,000 line item in the School's budget request to the legislature to renew the institution's accreditation with NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). In the circumstances the decision was not surprising since the NAC seal appears to be the shield for corrupt practice and poor performance more often than the assurance of quality service. The Arkansas story is convoluted and ambiguous--a tapestry of many threads, knotted and tangled. Human motives and actions are rarely black and white. They are usually gray in all of its shades--and the Arkansas story is a prime example. Perhaps the place to begin is with the dedication of a playground at the School's multiply-handicapped unit in May of 1993. Most of the money for the playground was raised by Wanda Nixon, the grandmother of one of the students and a woman, according to Ogburn and others, with an extended history of psychiatric problems. The playground was named for Nell O'Neil, the longtime principal of the multiply-handicapped unit. According to Ogburn, Mrs. Nixon was furious that the playground had not been dedicated to her, and he says that she warned him that she intended to see that he lost his job. In June of 1993 Ogburn says that he was invited to a meeting in the office of Mark Riable, a lawyer and member of the Arkansas Legislature. Also in attendance, Ogburn says, were another state representative, a state senator, a representative from the Attorney General's office, and a number of citizens who were apparently friends of Wanda Nixon. Ogburn was asked whether there was nepotism at the School for the Blind. Although his own daughter was a teacher at the institution at the time, he replied that there was not. The legislators asked for an opinion from the State Attorney General as to whether ASB was violating the Arkansas nepotism law. The answer was yes, and three employees whose jobs were at risk brought suit. The judge ruled that there was a conflict between the state's nepotism law and a 1927 statute that specifically permits the Superintendent of the School for the Blind to hire his spouse. The three employees were allowed to continue working under the terms of a court injunction during the 1993-94 school year. All three have now either found other jobs or have retired from employment with the school. As the nepotism furor was beginning to subside last spring, Helena Ward, Vocational Principal at ASB, came to Ogburn to ask a favor. A friend, Tina Gill, who was a graduate student at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, had obtained a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to conduct a survey aimed at improving communications at a state institution in Arkansas. Ward suggested to Ogburn that ASB volunteer to have Ms. Gill survey its employees, and Ogburn agreed. A forty-two-page report, described by Ogburn as preliminary and by Gill as virtually complete, was given to Ward in June, 1994. It stated that Ogburn had demonstrated favoritism to some employees and that there was a lack of communication between teachers and administrators at the School. On July 7, 1994, the police investigator, as part of the Ogburn probe, told Ward to produce a copy of the report for his examination. She said that it was at home but that she would bring it to school the following morning. But, according to the police report, she consulted Ogburn and his attorney overnight, and they advised her not to deliver the report on the ground that the project was not yet complete. The investigator asked Ward if she understood what she was doing. She said that she did but continued to refuse to hand over the document. The police investigator then prepared an affidavit to obtain a warrant for Ward's arrest for "obstruction of government operations." Ward was taken into custody, handcuffed, and hauled off to the police station on July 8 even though James Hill, Acting Superintendent of the School, gave the investigator the report as he was leaving the office with Ward in tow. The investigator made it clear that he wanted to make an example of Ward in order to persuade other staff members to cooperate with him. At almost the same time still another allegation against Ogburn and the school's Maintenance Supervisor, Ray Stewart, was made public. Ronnie Kimsey, a custodial employee at the School, who according to Ogburn had wanted for some time to supervise the maintenance department, stated in a legislative hearing and then in an affidavit that he had been required to do personal work for both Ogburn and Stewart, using state-purchased material and equipment. He also said that he had been instructed to charge material on School accounts in order to avoid paying sales tax. Kimsey's charges were emphatically denied by Ogburn in a telephone interview with the Braille Monitor, in which he explained that he had gone to extraordinary lengths to pay sales tax, even when Kimsey had avoided doing so. Here is the text of Kimsey's affidavit: Affidavit I, Ronnie Kimsey, state on oath and affirm: 1. I was born June 19, 1951, and I am forty-three years old. I live at the Arkansas School for the Blind in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am visually impaired and have been since I was seven years old. My wife Cathy lives with me at the Blind School. She is totally blind and has been since birth. 2. I attended the Arkansas School for the Blind from 1960 to 1969 and graduated from the Arkansas School for the Blind with a high school degree. 3. I returned to the Arkansas School for the Blind as an employee in December of 1985. I was hired as a general maintenance repairman and am still employed in that position. 4. I have always tried to be a good employee and do what I was told to do by my bosses. 5. I have been told to do some things that I don't think are right. Mr. Leonard Ogburn, who is the Superintendent, has told me to work on his personal boat, wave runners, and cars during working hours at the school. I have always done what he has said, since he is the boss. Some of the work I have done includes installing a trailer wiring harness on his car, wiring his boat trailer, working on his wave runners, wiring his wave runner trailer, fixing the windshield wiper motor on his car, swapping out batteries on his wave runners, replacing batteries, and other general maintenance on all those items. I have also been told by Mr. Ogburn and Mr. Ray Stewart (Campus Life Coordinator/Maintenance Director) to buy personal items for them on the school account and then they would pay for them. This avoids the sales tax that they would otherwise have to pay. 6. Mr. Ogburn's right hand man is Ray Stewart. They are almost always together. They both have condominiums in Hot Springs and spend a lot of time together there as well. Mr. Ogburn used to have me drive his boat to Hot Springs when he kept it at the Blind School. After the publicity about nepotism last year, he had me pull the boat to Hot Springs to get it off campus. I have worked on Mr. Stewart's condo in Hot Springs on school time. Among other things I have replaced the water heater element there. I have also worked on Mr. Stewart's house in Little Rock on Quachita Street. This was on school time. Some of the work I have done there is install a new kitchen sink, put a new light in the attic, put in a new gas line to the water heater, put in a new electric stove top, range, vent hood, and ceiling fan. I am sure Mr. Ogburn knew about this. 7. I am not the only school employee that has done work on personal items for Ogburn and Stewart during school time. 8. I am worried that, if I tell what has happened, I will be fired or something else will happen in retaliation. Signed and notarized, June 27, 1994 As a result of the Kimsey affidavit, a copyrighted story by Elizabeth Caldwell (reprinted with permission) appeared in the July 1, 1994, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Here it is: Blind School Chief Tapped Labor Time, Handyman Says Leonard Ogburn, suspended last week as superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind after allegations he physically abused a teacher, was accused Thursday of financial wrongdoing. Ronnie Kimsey, a maintenance employee at the school, told legislators that Ogburn used school employees to perform work on his car, boat trailer, and other personal items, all on school time. Kimsey also said Ogburn and maintenance supervisor Ray Stewart had him buy them personal items through the school's account to avoid the sales tax. Kimsey also said he worked on Stewart's homes in Little Rock and Hot Springs, also on school time. "It's a lie," said Ogburn, contacted later by telephone. Stewart, who is out of state on vacation, could not be reached for comment. The allegations came as legislators met to discuss consolidating the state schools for the blind and deaf to save money and improve efficiency. The consolidation idea--before a subcommittee of the joint interim committee on state agencies and governmental affairs-- eventually died after Rep. Mark Pryor made a motion to keep the two schools separate. In a telephone interview Ogburn said he has cautioned the staff against doing personal work on school time and that, if Kimsey performed such work, he was insubordinate. Ogburn does not deny that Kimsey hauled his boat to Hot Springs for him a couple of years ago, as Kimsey alleges. But Ogburn said he saw to it that Kimsey used vacation time to perform the chore. In another instance Kimsey said he bought a dryer part for Ogburn through the school's purchasing account so Ogburn would not have to pay sales taxes. Ogburn said he didn't know Kimsey was going to order the part through the school and, when he saw Kimsey didn't pay sales tax on it, Ogburn returned to the store and paid the tax. Rep. Joe Molinaro of Sherwood, subcommittee chairman, said Kimsey's allegations were properly before the subcommittee for discussion since they dealt with finances, but the committee does not have the authority to investigate. He said Kimsey's statement was sent to legislators through a lawyer. Molinaro said Kimsey decided to come forward now because, "He's had it on his chest for a while and he wanted to get it off," and wanted to do it in a public forum to safeguard his job. Jim Hill, interim superintendent of the school, said afterward that he was surprised by the allegations. "I have absolutely no knowledge of it," Hill said. He said the report would be investigated and that Kimsey would not be retaliated against. This is what the article said, and it underscores the disorganization and chaos that were engulfing the School. The charges of nepotism, favoritism, and misuse of staff time and institutional resources seem to have been leveled at Ogburn with sincerity and genuine passion, but there are many who dispute those charges with what appears to be equal sincerity and genuineness of passion. Moreover, we may never know the real truth since the charges, though they were made public in June, were not included in the warrant for Ogburn's arrest, which was issued on August 22, 1994, and dealt entirely with harassment. At the time of this writing (mid-October, 1994) Ogburn's trial is scheduled to begin on December 1. With respect to that trial, the judge and jury will be faced with difficult questions and unusual (one might almost say bizarre) testimony. The complainant is one of the teachers at the school, a woman who, according to both parties, has been close friends with Ogburn for many years. They have exchanged birthday and Christmas gifts, and did so during the 1993-94 academic year even though trouble was apparently brewing. Ogburn hired this woman at a time when she had only a two-year vocational degree, which was adequate for the course that she was expected to teach. Subsequently she was shifted to teach in an area that required a four-year degree, which meant that her credentials were now insufficient. Nevertheless, she was given the job and permitted to do the work. With Ogburn's encouragement, and (according to him) a remarkable amount of assistance from both him and his wife, she obtained a four-year degree and now has the credentials she needs to do the academic teaching she has been doing without proper credentials for years. Arkansas has a strong rape shield law, which requires that anything that could reveal the identity of a woman making charges of sexual misconduct must be expunged from material being published. Therefore, the information that follows has been carefully edited to eliminate any allusion that might indicate the identity of any of the women who have made charges. Although the context and wording may appear to make it seem that some of the affidavits we are printing in the rest of this article are from men, they are all from women. For convenience we will refer to the teacher who brought the charges as Miss A. We will refer to the others as Miss B, Miss C, etc. As we try to separate reality from fiction, certain facts should be kept in mind. In recent months Miss A has passed two separate polygraph tests, in which she was asked whether she was telling the truth about her allegations of physical harassment at Ogburn's hands. She also has a tape recording of a telephone conversation which she says occurred on June 26, 1994, in which Ogburn admits to the spankings and asks what she wants from him. Ogburn, on the other hand, failed a polygraph test about the spankings. Yet, listening to Ogburn's recorded telephone interview with the Monitor reporter, one can easily be convinced that he is genuinely perplexed and hurt by Miss A's accusations against him. Miss A is equally convincing in her display of distress and anger at what she maintains has happened to her. Yet, both parties cannot be telling the truth. From the hundreds of pages of affidavits and reports and from extensive personal interviews, the following picture emerges. Some years ago Ogburn's first wife died of cancer. Miss A was already a staff member at the school, and in the months following Mrs. Ogburn's death Ogburn and Miss A were very close. In fact, they seem to have spent time alone at Ogburn's condominium, where Miss A says she received one very hard spanking, and Ogburn says they played games in which they spanked each other's hands. According to Ogburn, he has never kissed Miss A on the mouth, though he admits that he may have kissed her on the cheek. They have hugged and held hands often, however, according to Ogburn. In the year following his first wife's death, Ogburn remarried, and the spankings apparently stopped until 1993. Some say that the second Ogburn marriage has been showing strain in recent years and that this may provide sufficient explanation for the renewed spankings and talk of spanking. Miss A is not the only one to make charges. Other women have come forward to file affidavits indicating that they, too, have experienced inappropriate physical and verbal contact initiated by Ogburn. These women fall into two groups: Arkansas School for the Blind students from Miss A's general student era and recent and current female School employees. Reading these affidavits and listening to Ogburn's talk about his relationships with students and staff, one is struck by his inability to make distinctions in his treatment of students, professional colleagues, and personal friends. He is clearly a man who enjoys what might be called "horsing around" with the people with whom he associates. He seems not to have much grasp of the dignity required of his position, the respect he should show to his colleagues, or the distance he should maintain with students. His behavior is obviously unprofessional, inappropriate, and boorish--but how far beyond that does it go? To attempt to find answers, let us turn to the affidavits: Affidavit of Miss A I, name withheld, state on oath and affirm: 1. I was born in 19xx and I am . . . years old. . . . 2. I attended the Arkansas School for the Blind from 19xx to 19xx and graduated from the Arkansas School for the Blind with a high school degree. While I attended the School for the Blind, I first met Mr. Leonard Ogburn, who is presently the superintendent of the school and was then employed as a vocational teacher. 3. . . . and in 19xx was employed there as a teacher. I have been employed at the Arkansas School for the Blind as a teacher since. . . . 4. While employed at the Arkansas School for the Blind I have attempted to give to the school and the students there my best efforts. 5. On or about August 4, 1993, Mr. Leonard Ogburn, then the superintendent, called me shortly after 9:00 in the morning at my home. He said that he wanted to come over and talk to me about my evaluation as a teacher at the school and then have lunch. He said something like "We're going to talk about it, and then I'm going to give you your spanking." He had done this before, so I knew what he meant by it. In 19xx, he spanked me very hard. A little after 11:00 a.m. on August 4, 1993, I met him outside the front door of my house hoping to avoid any physical contact. I said that we could talk over lunch and did not need to go in my house. He said no, that we should go inside. He said he also wanted to give me a spanking. I was scared and intimidated, and I went inside with him. He talked about my employee evaluation and then said, "Now you know what you have to do--you have to get your spanking." I said, "Leonard, I don't like this; I don't want to do this." He said, "No, come on." He grabbed me and pulled me over his knee and spanked me. This was extremely humiliating to me. I went ahead and went to lunch because I was afraid of what he might do if I didn't. A friend of mine who is also an employee at the blind school called me after I got back from lunch. When I talked to her I was crying. I told her, I was crying because I was upset about my evaluation. I was afraid to tell her what had really happened. I wish I had told her. I decided that I would not let this happen again. 6. Since the spanking and over the 1993-94 school year Mr. Ogburn has expressed displeasure that I have not attended all of the extra-curricular meetings involving the blind school. These meetings are not during regular working hours, and I am not required to attend these meetings. Some of the meetings he was referring to include a literacy conference, a Bingo party, and an AER conference. Mr. Ogburn, when asking me whether I was going to attend the AER conference in May of 1994, asked if I was going to get a spanking this year. Based on some of Mr. Ogburn's comments about my failure to attend these extra-curricular meetings and the fact that I had an additional performance review coming up this summer, I became concerned that Mr. Ogburn might attempt to repeat the spanking. I decided that I cannot and will not subject myself to that again. 7. I wish to formally complain about these activities of Mr. Ogburn. I am afraid and intimidated by him and fear that he will try to take some sort of action against me either personally or that will jeopardize my job. Despite my fear and concern over this, I feel that it is important for the blind school and for myself personally to stand up to Mr. Ogburn and stand against this sort of activity. Dated this 22nd day of June, 1994 Signed and notarized Affidavit of Miss B I, name withheld, state on oath and affirm: 1. I am . . . years old and was born in 19xx. I was employed at the Arkansas School for the Blind between . . . and . . . . While I worked there, my position of employment was janitor. In my capacity as an employee of the blind school, I came into contact with Mr. Leonard Ogburn, the Superintendent. On many occasions I would be working in the administration building on the blind school campus, where Mr. Ogburn's office is located, after all the employees had gone home. I was cleaning the building as part of my job. On one specific occasion in early 19xx at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon I was running a vacuum cleaner in the administration building and was bent over to work on the vacuum cleaner. Leonard Ogburn came up from behind me and hit me very hard in the buttocks and genital area. He just hit me one time, but it was a very hard striking of that area of my body. The vacuum cleaner was going, and he said something, but I could not understand what it was that he said. It was all I could do to contain myself, but I was scared and shocked and did not know exactly what to do. After thinking about it overnight, I confronted him the next day in his office. I told him to never do that again. At first he denied doing it but later admitted it. The job that I had at the Blind School was the worst job I have ever had in my life. The atmosphere at the Blind School was one of favoritism, office politics, and intimidation. People would lie and cover up for each other in ways that I have never seen before. If you played the favorite game, you were well treated; but, if you attempted to stand up for anything that was wrong, you were chastised. Dated this 29th day of June, 1994 Signed and notarized Affidavit of Miss C I, name withheld, state on oath and affirm: 1. I was born in 19xx and I am . . . years old. I live in Arkansas. I am an employee at the Arkansas School for the Blind. My position there is . . . teacher, and I have worked there since. . . . . . . . While working at the School for the Blind, I have had occasion to deal with Mr. Leonard Ogburn. On one occasion Mr. Ogburn called me out of class to tell me that I was his pet and that I was very important. I can't understand why he would call me out of class and away from the students to tell me this, and I thought that this was unusual. At times when I have been in his office at his request, he has put his finger in the pocket of my pants and said that he liked the way my britches looked on me. On one occasion he called me away from my class on the intercom and told me he was looking at my picture in the school annual. He told me that he loved the way my picture looked in the school annual. I expressed to him my surprise that he would call me away from class and away from the students for a reason like this.[Ogburn made a demeaning comment.] At a recent . . . meeting, where some of the tough issues involving the school were being debated,. . . . This was in front of a number of people, and I felt that he did this to put me down and as an expression of support for the other view being expressed. After the meeting I went to his office and told him in no uncertain terms how inappropriate I felt his actions were. After we discussed the matter for a while, he said come here, you can't leave yet; we have to make up, and to make up you have to give me a kiss. I told him then we would never make up because I was not going to kiss him. He forcefully replied, you just remember you owe me something, and we don't make up until you give me a kiss. I immediately told another teacher of this occurrence. On another occasion he pinched me very hard on the cheek after a COE meeting. I told him not to ever do this to me again, and it did hurt. He has also patted me on the cheek and then acted surprised when I expressed displeasure at that. He would say, "Oh you don't like that?" In bringing this information forward, I am concerned that Mr. Ogburn may take some sort of retaliatory action against me. . . . I request that the Governor's Office and the Board act to protect . . . me . . . in conjunction with my sharing this information for the benefit of the School and the students there. Dated this 29th day of June, 1994 Signed and notarized Affidavit of Miss D My name is (name withheld). I was born in 19xx, in Arkansas. I currently live in Arkansas. I am employed as. . . . [not at ASB] I have worked there for the past fifteen years. Before that I received a bachelor of science degree in elementary/special education from the University of. . . in. . . . My fields of study were. . . . Earlier this year I was contacted by . . . , a teacher at the Arkansas School for the Blind. . . . [Miss A] and I had been in school there together in the 'x0's. She had gotten my name from a woman, . . . who had been a library aide my senior year at the school. I had not heard from . . . [the aide] for about . . . years, but we had had a close relationship at that time because I spent a lot of time in the library on my own in addition to the two-hour study period each night. . . . remembered what I had told her and contacted an employee she knew who still worked there. This employee put her in touch with . . . [Miss A], and . . . called me to ask about Mr. Ogburn's behavior with me. I was stunned to hear about all of this after . . . years and was reluctant to get involved at first. I am telling these details now to support . . . [Miss A] and to improve the situation at the school. I was a student at ASB from kindergarten through graduation in June, 19xx. When I was seventeen and a senior, I began cleaning house for Mr. Ogburn, the school vocational director, and his wife, an elementary teacher there. The year before another student had done this job and had quit abruptly, causing me to wonder why, as it seemed like a good way to earn extra spending money. Later on I wondered if she had had a similar experience to mine. Mr. Ogburn would take me to his house after school on Thursday afternoons where I would vacuum and dust, etc. I remember it was Thursday because that was the night "The Waltons" was on TV, and he wanted me to be through in the den by 7:00 so he could watch and hear the show. Mrs. Ogburn and LeAnn, their daughter, were not home during these times. I do not remember if she had a class, hair appointment, or what; but it was regularly on Thursday as she and LeAnn were not there when I cleaned. It was not unusual for students to work for staff members outside school hours. Some would babysit and others would do yard work or car washes for extra pay. I had worked at the vending stand at school for Mr. Ogburn. He was well liked and respected by the students. He was always visiting with them and often made bets with them over trivial things, usually with the loser buying the winner a Coke. I would bet with him too. He used any excuse to make a bet. At first, if I lost the bet, I had to buy him a Coke; and, if he lost, he bought me a Coke. Eventually he wanted his winning of the bet to be that he'd get to give me a spanking. Thursdays after school, when we got to his house, he'd insist that he would have to give me a spanking for some bet that I had lost during the week. He sat on the couch and insisted I lie across his lap so he could spank me. I had to comply no matter how much I tried to talk him out of it; for he wouldn't drop the issue until he was able to give me a spanking. At his house he also insisted that he wanted to show me some wrestling holds the boys in school were learning. I would tell him that I wasn't interested in wrestling and I didn't want to do that, but he would insist. He then made me get on the floor with him while he would grab me in different holds, keeping after me when I tried to get away from him. I was forced to try to get away or else he wouldn't let me up. One evening he told me it was time for my spanking, but he wanted to spank me on my bare bottom. I tried to get out of it, but he insisted I had to pull my pants down in the back, lie across his lap, where he then spanked me on my bare bottom. This happened two times. One time he even asked me to spank him. I was very ignorant of sexual matters back then, but I had very bad feelings about all of this, especially as it continued, and I didn't know how to get out of it. Sometimes on Thursday, if he hadn't spanked me before Mrs. Ogburn and LeAnn got home, he would tell me about it on the way back to school. He then said we needed to go by the waterworks so I could get my spanking. I did not know exactly where or what the waterworks was, but it was always dark there, and we never got out of the car. It seemed fairly close to school. He would then drive me back to school, and I remember he recorded his mileage in a notebook he kept. After the second time he spanked me on my bare bottom, I finally mentioned all this to . . . , the library aide, because I trusted her judgment and didn't know what else to do about the situation. . . . then met with the superintendent, Mr. Max Woolly. She has since told me that the home life director Mr. Bob Brasher, met with them and that they said they would look into it. As far as she knows, nothing was ever done about it. When she didn't return to school the next year, I was afraid she might have lost her job because of me, but she said she wasn't coming back anyway. I also seem to remember that I was asked to take a test from the psychologist about that time, and I often wondered if the two were connected. The test was about personality, and I remember consciously answering all the questions with similar answers. For example, one question was about a hat and whether or not I would mend it, sell it, or give it away. I remember answering "sell it," which was not like me as I hated to even sell candy for class fund-raisers. At the end of the test the psychologist commented that my personality profile fell into the "persuasive" category. I wondered why I was being given this kind of test this close to graduation and if it had anything to do with my telling . . . and her telling Mr. Brasher and Mr. Woolly about what I had reported about Mr. Ogburn. I never checked to see if the results of the test were placed in my student file. I am reporting this information after . . . years because other people have reported their experiences with Mr. Ogburn, experiences I thought had only happened to me. I want to support them in their statements, and I want the improprieties to stop. Signed and notarized, July 25, 1994 Affidavit of Miss E My name is (name withheld). I was born in 19xx, in Arkansas. I now reside in . . . [another state].I attended the Arkansas School for the Blind in Little Rock, Arkansas, from the fourth through the twelfth grades, 19xx-xx. At that time, I probably had 20/200 vision (I now have only light perception). From the spring of 19xx through the spring of 19xx [one year], I sometimes babysat for LeAnn Ogburn, the daughter of Leonard and Joyce Ogburn, and was paid. Mr. Ogburn was an administrator at the school, and Mrs. Ogburn was a teacher. LeAnn must have been approximately seven years old. At times the Ogburns attended functions together, and at other times they went to separate places. On some of those occasions, when Mr. Ogburn got home first and LeAnn was asleep, the following events took place. Mr. Ogburn said, "Let me show you a new wrestling hold I showed Robert today." Robert was the boy I was dating. Because of my limited vision and also because I was a cheerleader for the team, I wanted to know what the wrestling procedures were. At first he only demonstrated the wrestling moves, but later he progressed to rubbing against me with his lower body. I would try to jump up and pull away. He would grab me; I would fall to my knees; he would get on my back and rock back and forth. I would try to get up from my knees as I was very fearful of him. One time Mr. Ogburn said he just wanted to show me some wrestling holds. He held me in the pin position and rubbed his abdominal areas against me. I told him I did not ever want to see any more wrestling holds. I did not babysit for them for a long period of time. Mr. Ogburn constantly joked with students about birthday spankings, which in public only amounted to pops with a paper or something as he passed through the snack bar. I just passed these off. During this time we began betting Cokes on ball games. If Texas won, he bought me a Coke; if the Razorbacks won, I bought him a Coke. At first it was Coke for Coke, but once, when I lost a bet, he said he wanted to collect a spanking instead of a Coke and made me pay up by laying me across his lap and spanking me. Several more spanking episodes occurred. The next time I babysat, he said, "I'm going to give you a birthday spanking." He turned me across his lap, held and spanked me, and pushed his male organ up against me with his lap. Then he said, "I'll bet you can't hurt me," and told me to spank him. I did because I wanted to hurt him. I refused to babysit anymore. I graduated and left the school. I thought this behavior had stopped, but now I have become apprised of similar instances and realize that it never stopped at all and Mr. Ogburn has done this to some others. My reason for coming forward is because of a history of this activity. I knew at the time of one, possibly two, other females who were at the school in the mid-x0's who had been similarly abused. Signed and notarized, June 1, 1994 There we have the affidavit of Miss A, as well as those of several others. Miss A says that there are still more women who have had similar experiences but who cannot bring themselves to tell what they know. Whether Miss A's testimony will stand up when she reaches court and has to be identified remains to be seen. And what a jury will make of the whole messy business is anybody's guess. When asked why she is pressing charges against Ogburn despite their long friendship, Miss A says that she simply came to the point where she could never again allow herself to be intimidated and frightened by Ogburn. She says that she is determined that today's and tomorrow's students at the Arkansas School for the Blind will not suffer the abuse to which their predecessors have been exposed. The scene that took place on September 23, 1994, when the School's Board of Trustees forced Ogburn to resign in response to the police report and the pressure from the Governor's office and the State Department of Education rapidly reached a pitch of hysteria. During the public portion of the meeting Ogburn's supporters (and there were a lot of them) said that the School would be destroyed if Ogburn was forced to resign. When the Board's decision to put Ogburn out was announced, the sobbing and shouting crowd of well over a hundred surged outdoors, where reporters and television cameras were waiting. While one employee was weeping and making a statement to a reporter with a video camera, her husband struck the tape recorder from the hands of the Braille Monitor reporter. He then repeatedly ground it under his foot, completely destroying the equipment. The action was indicative of both the mood and the rationality of the crowd. It should be said here that, though the tape recorder was destroyed, the tape was not. The record remains, giving irrefutable evidence of the lawless and frenzied behavior of the crowd--or perhaps one should say mob. But, of course, the real issue is not the excited behavior of Ogburn's supporters, or even the specific charges and countercharges. The prime concern must be the well-being of the children at the School, those who are there now and those who are yet to come. Almost as important are the atmosphere and working conditions for both teachers and administrative staff. A battleground characterized by warring groups and kinky behavior is no suitable environment for education. If worse comes to worst, the adults can bail out. The children cannot. So what does all of this scandalous business mean, and what of the future? To begin with, the very existence of the Arkansas School for the Blind is now in jeopardy. There are about 130 staff members at ASB and about 108 students. Everybody accepts the notion that a school for the blind requires intensive instruction and specialized professional activity, but it is hard to justify more than one staff member for each student. Despite the fact that the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind are administered by the same board on adjoining campuses, that we have heard of no proposed cuts to the budget of the School for the Deaf, and that the School for the Deaf is a more modern and attractive facility than the School for the Blind, the Arkansas legislature is considering cuts to the ASB budget. There is talk of merging at least some of the administrative components of the two schools, possibly a total merger. Regardless of the monetary case which can be made for such action, the quality of instruction for blind students would be threatened by it. In the circumstances it would seem to be nothing short of madness for the School to continue its accreditation with NAC, not only because of the expense but also (and even more important) because of NAC's shady reputation and false promise of assurance of quality services. When the seal of approval from an accrediting agency is displayed by a school, the members of the legislature and the general public have the right to expect that reasonable standards are being met. With NAC it often seems that the exact opposite is the case. When the abuse and misconduct at the NAC-accredited Florida and Alabama Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were exposed (see the March, 1989, and the February, 1990, issues of the Braille Monitor), NAC's supporters made an outcry. They said that each of these two instances was simply an individual horror story, not representative. Now we have Arkansas, and soon we will be covering the emerging scandal surrounding the firing last summer of Richard Umsted, superintendent of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired. Umsted was dismissed for, among other things, insisting that dangerous and even criminal actions be covered up in order to protect what he perceived to be the School's good reputation. These are, indeed, horror stories, but they are not isolated cases. They are a pattern. The true horror is that NAC continues to accredit institutions in which such actions take place and that there is no evidence that the situation is being investigated. There has been no withdrawal of the accreditation of any of the four schools, nor is there any indication that such withdrawal is being considered--or, for that matter, that any sanction or disciplinary matter is being contemplated. Under these conditions why would any reputable school permit its name to be associated with NAC, let alone seek accreditation from it? It is no wonder that only twenty-eight percent of the seventy-one schools for the blind in this country still allow themselves to be identified with NAC or to maintain accreditation from it. As to Arkansas, Ogburn is gone, but his legacy remains. The Board of Trustees will be well advised to conduct an open and thorough nationwide search to find a successor competent to meet the challenges that lie ahead. The new administrator's job will not be easy. The ASB staff is divided, distrustful, and demoralized. The legislature is determined to clean up the situation and make the School accountable to the legislature, the Governor, the parents, and the public. In the rethinking of priorities, hopefully the legislature will refuse to allocate funds to renew NAC accreditation, which can assure nobody of anything except that the School has an additional six thousand dollars to throw away. Ultimately the School must stand or fall on its own merit. The blind of the nation and the professionals in the field will be watching in the weeks ahead, for all of us have a stake in the outcome. PERTINENT RESOLUTIONS FROM ARKANSAS In view of the preceding article the following resolutions passed at the 1994 National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas Convention would seem to be noteworthy: Resolution 94-01 WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas has repeatedly expressed, through letters and resolutions, its opposition to the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) and has encouraged agencies in Arkansas to affiliate no longer with this organization; and WHEREAS, the Federation has charged that NAC serves no beneficial role in insuring that our agencies maintain high standards of conduct and performance; and WHEREAS, a scandal involving the Superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind has come to the attention of every literate citizen in the state of Arkansas, and yet NAC has done nothing to reprimand the School or to review its accreditation: Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas, in Convention assembled this twenty-third day of October, 1994, in the City of Fort Smith, that we call on officials charged with the operation and conduct of the Arkansas School for the Blind to sever their affiliation with this counterfeit accrediting body and to rely instead, for direction in the delivery of quality services, on the sound judgment of the citizens of Arkansas. Resolution 94-02 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Arkansas Schools for the Blind and Deaf demanded and accepted Leonard Ogburn's resignation as Superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind, September 23, 1994, because of his alleged sexual harassment of an employee; and WHEREAS, such alleged conduct on the part of any service provider toward the blind is a violation of the respectability and equality of the blind, a core belief of the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas; and WHEREAS, a separate school for the blind provides an effective and appropriate individualized education in academics and the skills of blindness: Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas in Convention assembled this twenty-third day of October, 1994, in the City of Fort Smith, that we commend the Board of Trustees for acting in the best interests of the blind of Arkansas by forcing and accepting the Superintendent's resignation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NFB of Arkansas call upon the public to differentiate between the conduct of an individual and that of an institution, recognizing that the School for the Blind can and should play a vital role in meeting the educational needs of an important segment of Arkansas's blind students and resisting the move, already contemplated, to consolidate the School for the Blind with others serving the handicapped; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we urge the Board of Trustees to continue to act in the best interests of the blind by conducting an unbiased national search to fill the Superintendent's position. [Photo #1: Leonard Ogburn gets into his car. Caption: Leonard Ogburn, recently resigned superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind.] [Photo #2: James Hill sits at his desk. Caption: James Hill, acting superintendent of the Arkansas School for the Blind.] [Photo #3: A large, brick building with white pillars and evergreen trees in front. Caption: The Arkansas School for the Blind.]