[nfbmi-talk] Reflections on the Cost Of Consumer Involvement

[Fred Wurtzel]

Dear List,

 

In the aftermath of a successful, yet painful and costly, pursuit of a
consumer-friendly college policy campaign, I must reflect on the process and
hope we have learned something.  The cost of this process was high in
monetary and human terms.  It has alienated consumers, tarnished the image
of a Commission Board member and called into serious question the leadership
of the Commission administration.  Bullying, intimidation and attempts to
mislead did not in the end, prevail.  Consumers got a quality policy, at
what cost?  We will not refrain from our pursuit of justice and fairness in
the provision of quality services to blind people.  

 

Why cannot our officials understand P.A. 260.  It is plain English.  The
law, P.A. 260 creates a higher standard for MCB than the open meetings law,
alone.  As you will read, below, the word "any" applies to all business
created under the authority of the Board.  The consumer friendly, common
sense approach would be to defer to the most open approach to conducting
Commission business, possible.  Why not?  What is worth creating hostility,
mistrust and an air of secrecy and elitism.  After all, ultimately, the
public will become aware of the outcomes, eventually.  

 

For instance, the college policy took an extra year to redo, plus the unfair
and inexcusable trashing of Mark Eagle as being ethically questionable, the
search for bullet proof skirting for meeting tables, security guards at
Commission meetings.  Was this worth it?  Why not let interested people
participate, or at least observe?  There did not seem to be a limit on the
number of expensive staff, yet, consumers, who could not even get lunch paid
for were excluded.  In the end, consumers and courageous Commissioners  had
to correct the mean-spirited and anti-blind policy created by that limited
group.  I hope we have learned something.

 

Below is an excerpt from the Commission law and a Q and A provided by Joe
Harcz tenacious digging for truth and justice  with Director Cannon.  You
will read how Director Cannon either deliberately or out of ignorance of the
law, mislead and inaccurately advised the Commissioners.  Wouldn't it be
simple to have a copy of the law at a Commission meeting to refer to?
Clearly the Director is not reliable.

 

393.365 Conducting business at public meeting; notice; availability of
writings to

public

.

Sec. 15.(1) The business which the commission or any committee appointed
under this

act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or
committee

held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being
sections 15.261

to 15,275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date,
and place

of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the
Public

Acts of 1976.

(2) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by
the commission

in the performance of an official function shall be made available to the
public

in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections
15.231

to 15.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

History: 1978, Act 260. Eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

 

            Chair Pilarski asked Director Cannon to address the question of
the OMA.  Director Cannon responded that most of the internal groups within

 

the Commission are open to all to attend and participate in, but there are
committees that have designated representatives to participate and speak for

 

each of their groups.  Ms. Pilarski indicated that each of the
representatives should be going back to their respective groups and filling
them in on the

 

meeting.  Director Cannon noted that meetings of the MCB Board are subject
to the OMA since the Board is a public body under the law.  He added that
other

 

committees and groups within the Commission, including its Consumer
Involvement Council (CIC) are not considered public bodies and not required
to be open

 

meetings under the law.  Sue Luzenski read a statement by Judge Andres
Friedlis, the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules in response
to an

 

inquiry about the statute " . none of these groups would be considered
public bodies subject to the OMA.  They are all formed to provide advice;
none have

 

decision making functions.  And their formation was not required by statute
or rule.  They consist of people having knowledge or an interest in the
Commission's

 

ultimate decision but none of the groups have any ability to decide these
questions.  If these groups are only advisory they are not 'Public Bodies.' 

 

Also they must be created by resolution, statute, ordinance, etc. to be
considered Public Bodies."

 

 

 

  Ms. Taeckens stated she served on ad hoc committee for the Training Center
which consisted of 21 people and it was hard to get input from all of the
participants.

 

 A bigger group would make it even more difficult to get the job done and
can impede the function and goal of the group.  There are times when
meetings

 

should be closed as long as there is peer representation. Several consumers
attending the meeting expressed their views on consumer participation, open

 

meetings and dialogue opportunities.

 

 

 

            Ms. Pilarski suggested that suggestions or comments could be put
in writing either on the listserve or on the website.

 

As you can read, above, neither Cannon or Friedliss were correct, since they
did not read the Commission law.  The Commission law does not require the
standard of a "public body" as does the OMA.  I repeat, here, "The business
which the commission or any committee appointed under this

act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or
committee

held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976,. . .

 

Speaking as a member of the NFB I have no doubt it worth our cost to stand
up for our values and philosophy.  I would, without question, do it again to
get a quality outcome for thousands of blind people to come.  I wonder if
others feel the vicious and unfair attack on Mark Eagle was, in the end,
worth it.  This was a low-point in the misuse of power and influence to gain
a point.  What about the questions raised when security guards appeared at a
Commission meeting?  Some people wonder about the kind of fear that provoked
such extreme measures.

 

Let's learn from our experience.  Let's be open and welcoming.  Let's accept
all views and consider them as sincere efforts to provide the best quality
services possible.  Let's abandon deception, misinterpretation and
intimidation as our tactics of choice for managing the MCB.  It has been
shown that, at least this time, the consumers will do what is necessary, in
an open way, assure quality outcomes.

 

Warmest Regards,

 

 

Fred