GRANT MACK FINALLY FORCED TO COME TO COURT
                                 by Kenneth Jernigan

     On January 17, 1992, Grant Mack--longtime militant proponent of the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC)--
stood in a Chicago courtroom to face criminal charges.  The charges resulted from
Mack's actions at a meeting at the Bismarck Hotel in Chicago, December 8, 1990.  (See
Braille Monitor, January, 1991.)  Mack and a handful of others had gathered at the
hotel to try to pressure Illinois agencies for the blind to seek NAC accreditation,
and representatives of the blind community had come to voice dissatisfaction with NAC
and to urge the Illinois agencies to resist.
     One of those present was Steve Hastalis, a blind Chicago resident who was there
as a reporter for the Braille Monitor.  He, along with other blind persons, was in
the room where the NAC dinner was to occur--and he had with him the usual equipment
carried by a reporter for the voice and print media, a tape recorder and a
microphone.  There were heated words as Mack, who was to chair the meeting, tried to
force the blind and the press to leave.  Mack's language was intemperate and abusive;
and ultimately he resorted to physical violence, seizing Hastalis's microphone,
throwing it to the floor, and breaking it.  Although there is a certain amount of
disagreement as to the details of what occurred, the essential facts are not in
dispute.
     In a paper which he circulated shortly after the December 8 meeting, Mack said
(and these are his own words):  "I reached out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up,
and threw it down."  That seems quite clear and direct and certainly explains why
charges were brought.  Shortly after the altercation, Hastalis [see Braille Monitor,
May, 1991] went to the police and swore out a complaint, and a court date was set for
January 3, 1991.
     When the date arrived, Hastalis appeared in court, but Mack did not.  After
trying to get the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that his client was an
elderly blind man who lived all the way out in Utah, Mack's lawyer became insolent to
the judge and said that neither he nor Mack would come back to the court.  The judge,
even though obviously displeased by this conduct, showed remarkable patience and
restraint.  He did not (as Mack's lawyer later claimed) dismiss the case but set a
new date for the trial (February 11, 1991) and ordered Mack to be present.  When the
date came and neither Mack nor his lawyer appeared, the judge issued a warrant for
Mack's arrest.  
     Even so, Mack and his supporters spent much of the rest of 1991 denying that the
whole thing existed.     In a letter which was widely circulated last Spring, Mack's
lawyer, writing to Mack, said in part:  "As I have previously advised you I appeared
in court on your behalf on January 3 and filed our motion to quash the summons that
had not been personally served upon you.  The court granted my motion to quash the
summons and further gave the state until February 11, 1991 to personally serve you
with the summons.  The Court further ordered that if personal service was not so
obtained, that the action would be dismissed without the necessity of our appearing
in Court."
     As evidenced by the issuance of the warrant for Mack's arrest and Mack's later
appearance in court, this statement by the lawyer (repeatedly trotted out and quoted
by Mack and his supporters) simply did not accord with the truth.  On January 17,
1992, Mack; his lawyer (not the one who had represented him earlier); Milt Samuelson,
Executive Director of the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind; and a few others tacitly
admitted the falsity of their earlier statements by finally coming to court to answer
the charges.  Peggy Pinder, an attorney and Second Vice President of the National
Federation of the Blind; Valerie Williams, a sighted person who was present at the
December 8, 1990, meeting at the Bismarck; Catherine Randall, a blind person who was
present at the Bismarck meeting; and Steve Hastalis, the complaining witness, were
also present in the courtroom.
     There are many things which could be said about Mack's trial and the events
leading up to it, but one thing cannot be disputed.  At the end of the proceedings,
the judge did not rule that Mack was guilty as charged.  However, this does not tell
the whole story, nor does it end the matter--for both NAC and Grant Mack come out of
the affair as tarnished as if the verdict had gone the other way.
     For openers, the intemperate behavior and abusive conduct (what might be called
the hooliganism) of Grant Mack and his NAC supporters remain unchallenged and clearly
on the record.  By Mack's own admission he "reached out, grabbed the microphone, tore
it up, and threw it down."  His statement to the court that he (a blind man) grabbed
the microphone but did so without touching Hastalis may have been accepted by the
court, but it is hardly likely to be taken seriously by anybody else.  Moreover, it
is irrelevant.  Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) says of battery that it is
the "slightest touching of another, or of his clothes or anything else attached to
his person, if done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner."  By this definition Mack's
conduct was certainly a battery and, therefore, illegal and a criminal offense.  
     Also, contrary to Mack's repeated boasts, he was compelled to come to court and
defend himself.  Taken in conjunction with what he, his lawyer, and his supporters
had been saying, what does this do for credibility?
     Finally, there is the behavior which Mack and the other NAC supporters
demonstrated at the December 8, 1990, meeting at the Bismarck.  Many of Mack's
comments were recorded on cassette, and others were reported by reliable witnesses. 
NAC and its friends have always claimed that NAC is a professional organization,
behaving decently and upholding standards.  Yet, the actions of Mack and other
NACsters at the Bismarck meeting were much more reminiscent of a barroom brawl than a
professional dinner and business meeting.
     Here, as quoted in the January, 1991, Braille Monitor is some of what occurred
at the Bismarck on December 8, 1990:

     Mr. Gashel:  I have a ticket right here in my pocket.
     Mr. Mack:  To what?
     Mr. Gashel:  This event.
     Mr. Mack (Becoming agitated):  We didn't sell tickets to this event....  Well, I
don't know where you got your tickets or who paid for it, but it was not authorized,
and you got a lot of damn balls to come in here and break in on it....
     Mr. Gashel:  We don't plan to [disrupt your meeting].  That's not the purpose
for being here.
     Mr. Mack:  Well, the hell it isn't....

     Besides this conversation with James Gashel, there was Mack's exchange with Dr.
John Halverson, who is a person of good reputation who holds a responsible position. 
Here is part of what Dr. Halverson reported:

     At about this time Mack became more belligerent.  While speaking with me, he
kept moving in closer, causing his dog guide to brush against my leg.  At one time he
said, "The Braille Monitor is a yellow journal."  He said, "You are all liars," and
he added that I was a liar.
     I asked, "How do you know that I am a liar?  You don't know me."
     Mack repeated, "You are all liars.  I know about you; I know you have a
reputation for being a liar."

     This is hardly the language of a professional who is promoting professionalism. 
It is the bullying language of ward politics and back room behavior.  Whatever it is,
it is not calculated to promote harmony or bring constructive results.
     Then, there is the statement on the witness stand of Catherine Randall.  She was
standing immediately next to Steve Hastalis during the altercation at the Bismarck,
and she testified to Grant Mack's belligerent conduct and boorish attack upon
Hastalis.  Despite the fact that she is a community leader and until recently held
elective office as an alderman in her home town of Jacksonville, Illinois, her
testimony was disregarded, presumably on the grounds that a blind person is not
competent to know what is going on around her.  Whatever the sighted public may
believe, the blind and the members of the blindness field will not be impressed by
such logic.  
     As to Hastalis, he certainly knows whether he was physically attacked by Grant
Mack.  His testimony received the same treatment as Randall's--and, one supposes, for
the same reason.
     And what of Valerie Williams?  She was a sighted witness to what occurred at the
Bismarck, but she was not allowed to testify.  She says that Milt Samuelson's
statement that he was standing with Mack when Mack confronted Hastalis and "reached
out, grabbed the microphone, tore it up, and threw it down," is not in accord with
the facts as she observed them.  She says that Samuelson was not with Mack during
this time at all.
     So where does all of this leave us?  Grant Mack is technically acquitted, but in
the circumstances it makes little difference.  The court proceedings were not and are
not the central focus of this controversy.  There was never any possibility (and, for
that matter, never any desire) that Mack receive more than a token fine and
conviction.  His actions are not changed or the record of his behavior erased by the
court's decision.  The events speak for themselves, and NAC's current plight is the
strongest possible testimonial to the way matters stand.
     To all intents and purposes NAC is dead.  It only remains for the official seal
to be placed on the coffin.  In the real world, where debts must be paid and scales
must balance, the chickens come home to roost--and NAC's flock is nearing the nest.