[nfbmi-talk] Revised Reflections on the Cost of Consumer Involvement

Fred Wurtzel f.wurtzel at comcast.net
Sun Aug 29 20:21:30 UTC 2010


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, the NFB of Michigan, 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 means of conducting
Commission business, possible.  Why not?  What outcome is worth creating
hostility, mistrust and an air of secrecy and elitism.  After all,
ultimately, the public will become aware of the players and their tactics
and honesty, eventually.  

 

For instance, some of the outcomes of the process were, 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.  Were these
wounds 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 through his 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 nor Friedliss were correct, since
they, apparently, 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, from P.A. 260: "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.  What truly motivated that fear?

 

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, obfuscation, 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, to assure quality outcomes.

 

Warmest Regards,

 

 

Fred   




More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list