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

[joe harcz Comcast]

Most well said Fred! The fact of the matter is that the hideous abuse of 
power in the Mark Eagle affair was just that...A hideous abuse of power!

The fact is as well that Cannon, et al have routinely violated not only PA 
260, the OMA and FOIA over and over again, but also the Rehab Act. In fact 
MCB nor any other VR entity would exist without this enabling legislation in 
the first place.

what is most glaring about the college policy issue in my mind is that 
people like yourself, Elizabeth, and me pointed directly to statute and 
regulations and professional staff who wouldn't have their jobs without this 
act actually tried to make thinkgs up including language that was just plain 
baloney and attributed to a citation that didn't say what they said it said.

This goes to Leamon Jones saying that hearings on the State Plan need not be 
held under the Rehab Act itself  until the act is amended. What utter 
nonsense that is. He did amend those comments later, but Cannon was clearly 
directing the spin on that issue.

Colleagues, Cannon would not know the truth written in law if it bit him on 
his bottom.

Simply laws are laws, but over and over again the system is corrupted and 
these actors act arbitrarily and capriciously in spite of known laws.

Finally, in regards to the ALJ determination or opinion referenced here 
about committees I must say we know how reliable these ALJs are in 
interpreting the law taand so does everyone by now. They are just shopped 
around for to give a rubber stamp to the dictates of Cannon.

These issues are not resolved by any ALJ, but rather in District Court in 
this State of Michigan.

Moreover, the chronic and pervasive and malicious violations of our civil 
rights will be settled in United States federal court.

It is not just one organization of the blind or one individual who is blind 
that has been damaged by the reckless and unlawful behavior of this renegade 
organization. All people who are blind in the state of Michigan have been 
gravely abused over and over again by this renegade agency. And the simple 
and plain fact of the matter is that this unlawful behavior stems from the 
very pinnacle of power over our affairs. that goes right to the top and that 
goes to Cannon.

Our great nation was envisioned to protect us from such abuse of power. We 
are supposed to be governed by the rule of law and not by men.

I cannot say how proud I am to be affiliated with the likes of you, Fred, 
Elizabeth, and NFB MI who holds this entity accountable to the rule of law.

Of course, the college policy issue is a victory, but as you imply here 
there is much more work to be done to undue the corrupt and abusive policies 
and practices of MCB over all.

Peace with Justice for All,

Joe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; 
"'Jeanette Brown'" <jbrown at mpas.org>; <pilarskij at charter.net>; "'Cannon, 
Patrick (DELEG)'" <cannonp at michigan.gov>
Cc: "'Lydia Schuck'" <laschuck at juno.com>; "'Luzenski,Sue (DELEG)'" 
<LuzenskiS at michigan.gov>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Reflections on the Cost Of Consumer Involvement


> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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