[Nfb-or] Commission for the Blind rally

T. Joseph Carter tjcarter at spiritsubstance.com
Thu Oct 20 22:51:46 UTC 2011 

The thing to remember is that 80-90% of the Commission's operations 
happen to be run correctly from a fiscal standpoint.  Whether any one 
decision the agency makes is "right" or not is perhaps in the eye of 
the beholder, of course.  But fiscally, they get it right most of the 
time, and the audits do show that.

The problem is that when you look at what they're not doing right, 
it's pretty consistent that the same problems crop up time and time 
again.  This shows not only bad management, but an unwillingness by 
management to alter established practices.

It's no surprise to me that so many of the problems float around the 
BE Program; the issues there have long ago become deeply personal.  
For the vendors, clients of the Commission whose livelihoods are on 
the line, that is understandable.  For the Commission administrators 
who are supposed to represent state and federal government, it is 
completely unacceptable.  The actions I myself have observed have 
been nothing less than active retaliation against "troublemakers" in 
the BE Program.

And you don't even have to be a member of the BE Program to know that 
if you "cause trouble" at the Commission, you're likely to find it 
very difficult to receive services.  I could name half a dozen people 
not in the BE Program in the Salem and Portland areas who could tell 
you exactly how they managed to get on somebody's list and what 
services they no longer receive as a consequence.  I could, but they 
won't talk about it in open forum anymore, because they have learned 
to fear the leadership of the Commission for the Blind.

This should not be.  We NEED the Commission for the Blind, but we 
need it to be run responsibly.  After seeing these problems unfixed 
for more than a decade, I can only conclude that the administrative 
staff we have today aren't up to the task.

Joseph


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0700, Tami Kinney wrote:
>Joseph,
>
>Oh, I believe it. The fact that even the most basic communication 
>with just about anyone working for or with the Commission for the 
>Blind goes round and round with equal unreason and contradictions 
>showed me years ago that this is what is happening from the top 
>down... It is cultural. It is hardened. It is what has been accepted 
>and therefore is within that culture, acceptable.
>
>So, then... Do we continue to accept it, or to dismiss and denigrate 
>those who don't?
>
>As far as I can see, from what I have observed when it comes to this 
>agency in now 12.5 years as a legally blindOregonian, we deserve what 
>we have and deserve the consequences of accepting the unacceptable.
>
>If we don't care about ourselves and each other, why *should* the 
>legislature and the Governor -- or anyone else, for that matter -- 
>care what becomes of us. To them, we are The Blind. While I 
>understand what you mean when you say that they are looking for a 
>reason to shut the agency down because they somehow are against 
>providing services to the blind... My own conclusion ab out the 
>motivations there is much, much colder. They aren't against us... 
>They're not trying to do anything to us.
>
>They just don't care. To them, we are The Blind. Period. We don't 
>count enough for them to care enough to want to do anything to us.
>
>You bet that there is, to them, just a big pile of dollars laying 
>around doing nothing. And they are absolutely right.
>
>I have to be honest here. As a taxpayer, I was *happy* a couple of 
>years ago when I read that the agency had been shut down. As I was 
>baffled and even a bit disgusted when I read that then-Governor 
>Kulongoski had relented and renewed the funding. especially since 
>this appeared to be in response to the blind of Oregon throwing fits 
>and insisting that we continue to put money into the hands of people 
>who have demonstrated over and over that they have no intention of 
>using it for its intended purpose. And we're still paying their 
>salries! And benefits. And we're paying for their retirement.
>
>Now, a mere two years later, there's a big furor and surprise and 
>horror that we may lose our precious agency because *they* are out to 
>get us? That *they* -- whichever "They" one chooses to point to -- is 
>doing this *to* us?
>
>Well, there is a truth to that, that is undeniable In that, I do 
>agree with you and others who say what you have said completely.
>
>However, it is my belief that, in a greater sense, we have done it to 
>ourselves. So long as we continue to accept what is unacceptable -- 
>as individuals, a a group, then we really are just whiny children, 
>complaining because the world won't do for us what we won't do for 
>ourselves. We don't care about our careers or education or whether we 
>have the tools to make the most of either. Why should anyone else? We 
>don't care about our own rights or the rights of each other. Why 
>should anyone else? If we, collectively, are willing to go on eking 
>out what lives we can on Social Security, why should anyone paya dime 
>towards tools we don't care to have? If we all agree to accept 
>inadequate training as adequate -- and furthermore accept that 
>spending years getting that training is reasonable -- why should 
>anyone bother to make it available?
>
>Well, no single one of us has a hope of changing it on our own. I'm 
>pretty tickled, really, that it is on the NFB list that discussion is 
>happening. I see it as a profound switch from the culture that says, 
>"We don't talk about that." By remaining silent, we acccept it. We 
>may not agree, we may all say what we need or want to say in 
>different ways. But people are beginning to talk about it. Yay! The 
>rest of the buzz, at least the parts I get regularly are pretty muted 
>and often disappointing to me. But even there the buzz is louder. We 
>need  action more than talk, but since there will be no collective 
>action without talk... This is a good start.
>
>I dunno. I'm thinking of your description of the Board meeting as 
>being messy. Perhaps that is a better sign, too, than if it were just 
>orderly. Changes in status quo are inherently messy.
>
>Your description of the mess, of those roundabouts of contradictory 
>statements, each given in support of the statement it inherently 
>contradicts... That is well done! You nailed that one on the head. 
>And you let it be known that it is not acceptable
>
>Kudos to you for that!
>
>Tami
>
>
>
>On 10/19/2011 03:07 PM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>I told Steve Law, the reporter for the Portland Tribune, that I wasn't
>>the least bit concerned with whether or not Linda Mock would ultimately
>>be replaced. The auditors are unhappy. The legislature is unhappy. The
>>governor is unhappy. Ms. Mock has run the agency for 10 years now, and
>>hasn't been able to clean up sloppy bookkeeping practices, and now her
>>excuse is that she just doesn't have the budget to account for how she's
>>spending her budget? It doesn't fly.
>>
>>That's why I'm not concerned whether or not she will be ousted in the
>>end. If she isn't, it's because the legislators want to use this
>>"crisis" to close the Commission for the Blind. (Saul Alinsky 101: Never
>>let a crisis go to waste, and ends ALWAYS justify the means. The same
>>group of people used similar tactics to close our School for the Blind.
>>They made a try at the Commission in 2009 as well, so you can bet
>>they'll be back to try again!)
>>
>>If we're to keep our separate agency after 16 years of fiscal folly,
>>things need to be shaken up both on the Commission board itself, and in
>>the agency's management. The evidence of the former is that half of the
>>Commissioners haven't figured out the latter yet.
>>
>>The board meeting earlier this month was a disaster. Can you actually
>>believe that one of the Commissioners said that if the auditors knew the
>>good work the Commission for the Blind was doing, they wouldn't be
>>quibbling over a few bookkeeping errors? They also said on one hand that
>>they needed to take this audit very seriously and communicate that they
>>were doing so, and then almost immediately said that they could and
>>should disregard most of it because the agency is doing the best it can.
>>I kid you not, there is a tape of the meeting available if you can't
>>believe it.
>>
>>So my concern, as I communicated to Mr. Law, isn't whether Ms. Mock will
>>eventually step down over this. It's whether or not the Commission will
>>continue its practice of promotion in-house by default. There is not one
>>single person in the Commission structure today capable of cleaning up
>>the mess. Ms. Mock continued the practices of Mr. Young when she was
>>promoted to fill his position, and her in-house replacement is sure to
>>do likewise.
>>
>>It takes fresh blood at the helm. I could think of people who would be
>>good administrators here in Oregon, and a few more around the country.
>>Some of them are sighted, and others blind. What a concept eh? A blind
>>person leading an agency that serves the blind.
>>
>>Joseph
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:34:52PM -0700, Tami Kinney wrote:
>>>Great words! Will they be followed by action, one wonders?
>>>
>>>The next question is, naturally, will the vacancy we can hope to
>>>expect be filled by a competent replacement? Will that replacement be
>>>allowed to clean up that very messy house? Will it occur to anyone
>>>involved in the process of replacing the administrator that if the
>>>employees under this administrator haven't learned to fill out forms
>>>by now, they're not likely to, in other words?
>>>
>>>And that, perhaps, if any given state employee can't learn to fill out
>>>forms and perform other mundane and basic tasks, they are perhaps not
>>>suited for promotion. Or even for keeping around! I'm all for paying
>>>state employees what they're worth, really I am. It's just that I tend
>>>to think that a state employee who lacks basic literacy and office
>>>competency skills, ain't worth paying much. Or anything.
>>>
>>>Or am I just being silly there?
>>>
>>>Tami
>>>
>>>
>>>On 10/19/2011 05:28 AM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>>>The governor famously said in his campaign for the job that anyone
>>>>running an agency who couldn't get their fiscal house in order need
>>>>not apply to keep their job.
>>>>
>>>>Joseph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 08:19:18PM -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>>>>Are you not setting yourself up by going public to force the
>>>>>Governor to back Linda?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Freeman
>>>>>sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 18, 2011, at 18:02, Tami Kinney <tamara.8024 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>YESSSS!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, you betcha!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TamiOn 10/18/2011 01:26 PM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>>>>>>>Passed along by request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Joseph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There will be a rally at the Oregon Commission for the Blind on
>>>>>>>Monday, October 24th, from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. The recent
>>>>>>>secretary of state's audit and articles in the newspapers show
>>>>>>>that the administrator, Linda Mock, and the director of the Oregon
>>>>>>>vending program need to be replaced. I'm very concerned that if
>>>>>>>they are not replaced, we could lose our commission board as it
>>>>>>>exist or even worse, our separate agency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please join me in sending a positive message to our governor, the
>>>>>>>secretary of state's office and all Oregonians that the past
>>>>>>>performance of OCB management is unacceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Art Stevenson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>>>>>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>>>>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>>>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Nfb-or mailing list
>>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nfb-or mailing list
>Nfb-or at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-or_nfbnet.org

More information about the NFB-OR mailing list