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

Mon Aug 30 19:33:54 UTC 2010

Hi Elizabeth,

I guess that I look at the whole policy compared to the Marquette version.
Believe me, I will not stop fighting to get rid of the DLEG form and to make
sure the policy is in conformity to the law in every part.  My perspective
on the success is the way the tone and mostly the substance is far different
than where it started in Marquette.  Simply compare the old preamble to the
new one.  It is respectful and is not condescending and patronizing.  If you
compare section to section, the story is similar. 

I do not think this policy is perfect.  I just don't think perfection needs
to stop progress.  The NFB proved that we can make a difference.  Pat Cannon
did not want this policy.  He argued against it. Geri and Jo Ann stuck with
it until it was better.  They took a principled position.  One remaining
major improvement is to fully put the IPE and the student/counselor
relationship as the primary deciding factor on all aspects of the plan.  The
policy is vastly better for students with multiple disabilities, but is
still tilted against them.  I would have liked a couple other improvements
like parity for out-of-state tuition for programs not offered in Michigan.
The DLEG form removed, a requirement that the counselors have conferences
with students under certain circumstances where the word should is there
instead of shall.  This policy will be reviewed in a year.  We will be at
the table with more experience with the policy.  We are in this for the long
haul.  I have great confidence in you and other students to help identify
tweeks where they need to be made.  From this vantage point, if we keep up
our advocacy we will make the policy even better.  

Please don't quit  pushing.  Just because I think this is a victory, doesn't
mean you need to agree.  I think we should always declare victory when we
have a positive influence.  Remember the war is not over until we say it is.
This is a victory in a battle, not the whole war.  The war will not end
until the Commission gets what a good agency is, what a positive philosophy
of blindness is, what quality rehabilitation is, what quality staff training
is and that the Coommission Board takes charge of the agency and manages
withese principles.  This is like D-day.  We still have to fight all the way
across Europe.  We will prevail in our efforts, because we are right and
have 70 years of experience in creating quality rehabilitation.

So the answer is that this a victory in a battle, not the whole war.  We
will win the war, sooner or later, but we will win, because we can outlast
any bureaucracy ever created..

Warmest Regards,

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:41 PM
To: NFB Michigan
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Revised Reflections on the Cost of Consumer
Involvement

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%40hotm
ail.com

_______________________________________________
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/f.wurtzel%40comc
ast.net