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

[Elizabeth]

Hello Fred,
 
I think what you said was well written, but I am just wondering, how exactly do you see our campaign for a consumer friendly college policy to be a success? I guess I just don’t see it the same when they have approved to use the new DELEG Financial Needs form, a form that I wonder if they have even seen before as part of the policy. Am I the only one who has concerns about the use of this new form? 
 
As a college student, I would much rather pay a stupid college application fee than be subjected to all the additional red tape that will be involved with this new form. The students don’t even have any control over when and how this form gets filled out by the financial aid office, so what happens to the student when they do not send the form back in time to meet the deadlines imposed by the agency? Again, why should the student be harmed by something that is essentially out of their control? I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this form benefits anyone but the agency.
 
Respectfully,
Elizabeth

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Fred Wurtzel
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 4:22 PM
> To: 'Geri Taeckens'; 'Elizabeth'; luzenskis at michigan.gov;
> alissa161 at gmail.com; cannonp at michigan.gov; dcgorton601 at comcast.net;
> mohnked at hotmail.com; wild-rose at sbcglobal.net; furtond at michigan.gov;
> grace at menzelcoaching.com; debate912 at gmail.com; mpvi at intergate.com;
> heibeckc at michigan.gov; jbrown at mpas.org; pilarskij at charter.net;
> jonesl2 at michigan.gov; kisiell at michigan.gov; 'Larry Posont';
> laury-johnsons at michigan.gov; lovep at michigan.gov; 'Lydia Schuck';
> mcnealg at michigan.gov; mcvoys at michigan.gov; silveya at michigan.gov;
> smithd11 at michigan.gov; martzvir at msu.edu; whitee2 at michigan.gov;
> wilsond9 at michigan.gov; 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Cc: brlbumps at sbcglobal.net; 'Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List';
> 'John Scott'; margwolfe at usa.net
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Revised 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, 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/christine_boone%
> 40comcast.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com