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

[Elizabeth]

Hello Fred,
 
Thanks for sharing your perspective on things. I guess I just wish I felt the same way as you because right now I just feel defeated. If there are others who wish to keep up the fight, then that is great, but at this point in time, I am not sure if that is something that I can do. 
 
Elizabeth
 
> From: f.wurtzel at comcast.net
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:33:54 -0400
> CC: pilarskij at charter.net; geri.taeckens at isahealthfund.org
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Revised Reflections on the Cost of Consumer Involvement
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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