[nfbmi-talk] FW: College policy edited board draft for 8-27 meeting

[joe harcz Comcast]

Dear Elizabeth,

If the final recommendation/policy does not comply in letter and spirit of 
the law (Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended) (and I'm talking about the 
bare minimum her. ... Then we collectively should sue the MCB  back to the 
stone age of whence they came.

I am sorry for my stridency here and my straight talk.

But, we've got CRCs who should know their obligations and who have abjectly 
ignored them/ and, or violated them directly. These folks make in excess of 
$40,000 per year and then trash us, again in violation of known laws?

They try to implement known illegal processes and procedures while sucking 
our life blood with their salaries at taxpayer's expenses?

It makes me sick in my stomached but I'll not tolerate it for one minute.

There are some fundamental principles at play here and in all of these 
affairs whether one comes from a so-called "left" perspective or a so-called 
"right" perspective.

The principles at play here are that we as a society and we withing the 
confines of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended are supposed to be a 
rule of law and not of men. Why on God's green earth do we tolerate in any 
instance that abhorrent, and now virtually pathological behavior against 
these fundamental constructs?

In other words, and in brief, why do we or anyone in Michigan tolerate the 
brazen offenses against the plain language  of not only theRehab Act 
(including here Titles I and V), but also the ADA, IDEA, the FOIA and the 
OMA amongst others? I'll tell you that when it comes to this state over all 
and McB in particular under this current regime of extraordinary power of 
Cannon there is no rule of law.

There is only the fiat power of a disillusioned and, in my personal opinion, 
supported by professionals in the field of psychology, a pathological 
monstroustrousity on the final stages of self delusion and immolation.

Sad thing is if we don't get our collective acts together and salvage this 
thing the politics and economics of the right will take over.

Either way we lose unless we, and I mean all informed blind folks act in 
unison with a common purpose.

I hope, most sincerely that you do not think that myterse terms are aimed at 
you, Elizabeth, for they are not in the least.

Nor, do I think cynically, for I am a forever optimist, and even as some 
deem an "idealistic romantic".
This said, in this most real world of politics there are some real bad guys 
out there and Cannon is simply the worst of the worst.

History and documented and objective facts have proven this to be a simple 
factoid.

The bulk of the U.S. population does not see this however.

Thus to "whin hearts and minds" we must expose the corruption, dereliction 
of duties, malfeasance and so forth to bring about true reform in my 
opinion.

I know that many don't like the down and dirty approach. Frankly, I don't 
like it much myself. But, this is the reality that we must face for our 
survival.

We cannot continue to go to gunfights with butter knives.

We must fight fire with fire.

Our ultimate fire is not extreme as some might expect. In fact it is the 
reverse of extremism. Our ultimate fire is inthe very laws again referenced 
in this message. We need to have them only implemented and enforced.

Stand tall my colleagues!! Stand tall!! Right is on our side!!

Peace with Justice,

Joe Harcz


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Michigan Students" <mi-abs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:49 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] FW: College policy edited board draft for 8-27 meeting



Hello List,

Joe is correct. There is now only one final version of the college policy 
that will be considered at the board meeting next Friday. I honestly fail to 
understand how this committee is suppose to work because everything I hear 
that the committee is suppose to do never seems to end up happening. It is 
almost as if they can never really make up their mind about how to run 
things except for the fact that they seem rather adamant about passing the 
policy a certain way. I am deeply opposed to this final draft for so many 
reasons that I cannot even begin to count.

Their attempt to include the input of consumers and college students only 
seems to be an empty promise. Just look at the list of names who edited the 
final draft. Do you see the names of any consumers or current college 
students listed in this list of names? They claimed that they wanted us to 
work with them to create this policy. In fact, at the last Commission Board 
meeting, they said that if we did not like how the policy was written to put 
our ideas and suggestions in writing, and that is exactly what we have done. 
However, rather than embracing this input with an open mind, it seems as 
though the only thing they have done with our ideas is toss them out the 
window without giving them a second thought.

In my opinion, it is the agency who is the driving force behind this policy 
because if only they could pass a new college policy, then it would make 
them look good in the eyes of the federal audit. If I recall correctly, it 
was the agency who wanted to change this policy and not the Commission 
Board. I still believe that their motive is to implement the new DELEG 
Financial Needs form which they claim needs to be a part of the policy. I 
can imagine that the agency wanted this policy to pass with no questions 
asked, but they finally found an issue that both consumers and the 
Commission Board feel passionate about.

Not only does the policy still include the DELEG Financial Needs form, but 
they have now taken out the no harm clause in regards to the Memorandum of 
Understanding which stated that the Michigan Commission for the Blind shall 
provide an accommodation or service when there is a dispute over who should 
provide the service or accommodation. This change was made based on the 
recommendation by a staff person who said that this statement was a 
disincentive for college and universities to provide these services. 
However, this statement can be found in both the Rehabilitation Act as well 
as the Memorandum of Understandings.

So we definitely have our work cut out for us if we want the Commission 
Board to pass our version of the policy rather than the one that is being 
presented to them by the committee. A few weeks ago, both policies were 
presented to the Commission Board, and they were presented to pick and 
choose what they liked best from each policy. Unfortunately, this no longer 
appears to be the case, and there is only one final draft of the policy that 
will be voted on during the meeting next Friday.

With this in mind, I strongly urge everyone who can to attend the meeting 
and voice their opinion about the college policy. Even though the Commission 
Board accepts public comment by email, it will be important for us to be 
there in person to present our public comment because the comments submitted 
by email are read in the afternoon. Since the discussion on the college 
policy is scheduled for the morning, I imagine a decision will be made on it 
before they read the public comments that are submitted via email.

I apologize for not sending out this message sooner. I was out of town when 
I received this message, and as a result, I failed to pass it on to the list 
in a timely manner. Personally, I am getting burned out from all of the hard 
work I have put into this issue.  I would greatly appreciate your support in 
making sure that when the Michigan Commission for the Blind passes a new 
college policy that it favors the rights of blind students rather than 
simply a means for the agency to nickel and dime services to college 
students. Wile I understand the power of one voice, just think of what we 
can accomplish if we can come together and speak with one unified voice.

Elizabeth

From: geri.taeckens at isahealthfund.org
Subject: College policy edited board draft for 8-27 meeting
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:56:32 -0400

Dear fellow board members and college policy work group members,

 Attached is the final edited draft of the policy that came out of the June 
21st 2010 work group.  There were some modifications to this draft as a 
result of e-mail feedback through 7-19-2010 and then edited by Gwen Botting, 
Geri Taeckens, with Leamon Jones, Amber Silvey and Sue Luzinski inputting 
the references indicated in the draft.

Not every piece of feedback was written into this draft.  The editors tried 
not to make any major content changes as we wanted to preserve the integrity 
of the agreed upon content that came out of the group process.  I did 
however, send everyone a rough draft with notations that indicated added 
staff or consumer recommendations.  I also sent a draft written by Fred 
wurtzel and Elizabeth Monke.  It will be up to the board if they want to 
modify any of the wording or content of the attached draft based on those 
recommendations.

Again, I will reiterate that along with any college policy approved, I would 
encourage the board to recommend adaptations to the college assessment 
criteria and the DELEG statement of financial need.

I want to again thank everyone for their incredible commitment to this 
process.  I would like to encourage staff and consumers to speak any 
concerns they may have about this policy during public comment at the 8-27 
board meeting.  I wood also like to ask that we all understand that this 
policy can not possibly be agreeable to everyone in every way, but that the 
process of cooperative effort be celebrated and the policy approved by the 
board be embraced.

Thank you again.

Geri


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
>