[nfbmi-talk] Those Darn Sneaky Blizzards

Wed Jun 23 12:08:23 UTC 2010

By the way does anyone have Jeanette from cap email or the person who does 
system advocacy.

One thing that MCB neglected in its summary of the Rehab Act is that CAP was 
created in I think Title IV in that act. Moreover a system of protection and 
advocy services was established under Title IX of that law.

Oh yea Cannon and all forgot to list the creation of the Access Board in 
that same law. Kind of funny since he was the chair of that board which 
establishes among other things scoping requirements for the Americans with 
Disabilities Act guidelines including rasised character and braille signage 
requirements. They spent a whole lot for new signs between the past two 
meetings. But I reviewed some real boo boos thee. Oops just another law that 
Cannon violates...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: <cannonp at michigan.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Those Darn Sneaky Blizzards

> Hi Elizabeth and List,
>
> Elizabeth, I feel bad that you feel this way.  Please don't give up.  You
> have helped us make good progress.  We cannot stop, now.
>
> The way we were treated, yesterday, was unconscionable.  The way Lisa
> condescended and belittled us was shameful.  The way the staff behaved at
> lunch was disgraceful.  They would not eat with us or lower themselves to
> eat food from blind vendors.  Though Pat said there was a sense of urgency
> in passing a policy, the staff insisted on their 1-hour of lunch rather 
> than
> the 20 minutes we suggested.  This proves there was no intent to listen to
> us.  They came in force at taxpayer expense to shut us up, just like they
> did in the 15 months of meetings they held.   The idiotic idea of writing 
> a
> "handbook" for students when they cannot even follow the policy they now
> have is ridiculous.  They want to keep us going in circles trying to 
> explain
> why we are too stupid to read the policy.  That is exactly what Lisa said,
> yesterday.  She said that only "professionals" like her are capable of
> reading policy.  Leamon sat there and let her talk down to us like that. 
> We
> figure they spent $5-8,000 on staff time yesterday to come and demean and
> ridicule blind people who came in good faith at our own expense to get a
> consumer friendly college policy.
>
>
> Then consider how the so-called client advocate, lapdog, Jeanette, from
> Protection and Advocacy helped them to make it sound like their thinly
> veiled attempt to create a means test was not there.  She is another
> embarrassment.  She is so in the pocket of Pat cannon that there is no 
> hope
> of fair treatment from MPAS.  Just ask Marcus Simmons and Mary Wurtzel how
> helpful MPAS is.  They won't hardly return phone calls.
>
> Elizabeth, keep the faith.  They want to crush your spirit.  They want to
> crush all independence and self-confidence so they can run rough-shod over
> us.  They have abandoned following the law.  From open-meetings to FOIA to
> P.A.260 to the Randolph-Sheppard act they trample the spirit and letter of
> the law.
>
> Now, Leamon Jones is telling Larry Posont that the Commission Board is
> advisory.  James hull is telling Andrea Nelson that the Elected Operators
> Committee is advisory.  I suppose it is because we are so stupid that we
> cannot understand that when the law says that the Elected Committee SHALL
> actively participate" in major administrative decisions of the agency, we
> poor uneducated slobs actually think that that is what it means.  I wish
> Lisa would explain these things to us.
>
> I have recordings of the meeting.  It will take me some time to find 
> Lisa's
> comments.  I hope to make a CD for everyone to hear.  I will send it far 
> and
> wide to let everyone hear what Pat cannon has allowed people on his staff 
> to
> think. It is close to hate speech, in my opinion.  Shannon's condescending
> moralistic idea that the agency is somehow responsible to make blind 
> people
> responsible and righteous is so much like the way slave owners talked 
> about
> slaves.  I cannot believe this is 2010.
>
> So, please do not give up.  It is critical to keep up  the pressure and
> create the kind of agency we dreamed of in 1978.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Fred
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Mary Ann Rojek
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:04 PM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Those Darn Sneaky Blizzards
>
> Joe, I think both your email and Elizabeth's hit the nail on the head.  In
> addition, Dave Robinson was fired because he knows of the internal
> mismanagement in the BEP, the deplorable and disrespectful treatment of
> operators by the BEP staff and the unwillingness of BEP management to 
> insist
>
> that building managers obey the law.  He advocated for blind people and
> spoke out against the corruption that he saw and that still exists.  The
> fact that the same administrative law judge is hearing so many cases and 
> the
>
> number of administrative hearings, grievances and cases involved in 
> federal
> arbitration is absolutely mind boggling. To say that there are extremely
> serious problems in the BEP is the under statement of the ear.
>
> Mary Ann
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Those Darn Sneaky Blizzards
>
>
> You have a lot of it right on elizabeth, but there is much much more than
> the college policy involved here. not that that is unimportant mind you. 
> It
> is.
>
> Frankly, I think that Lehman Jones alredy put his college policy in to RSA
> in December though I can't prove that and that they are just making a dog
> and pony show of consumer involvement here.
>
> But, they aren't reporting the numbers on all kinds of standards and
> indicators including required consumer satisfaction surveys and, most
> importantly MCB has been real hinky with its financing including abusing 
> the
> cash match requirements.
>
> I know that our sister agency, by public comments in minutes will be out 
> $10
> million next year and will go to order of selection.
>
> And there report isn't finalized yet either.
>
> In fact only Michigan's is not final on the RSA web site out of all the
> states monitorred in Fiscal Year 2010.
>
> This is an old problem this failure and collapse of monitoring.
>
> It goes back to when Bush fired Joanne Wilson. At that time he also cut 
> the
> federal monitoring in half and eliminated all the regional offices. Also 
> the
> annual on site auditing was not done every year as it used to be and now
> they are just getting down to thorough monitoring.
>
> Also I've heard real good things about the new RSA Commissioner Lynnae
> Rutledge and she's done a lot with a broken system of monitoring, but she
> was only confirmed last December.
>
> Now you are right on though in your analysis as far as it goes though. 
> Just
> there's a lot more than this college policy that is hinky.
>
> And I'll say it to my grave that Christine was not fired because of any
> marksmanship program, but rather because she knew too much about the
> internal mismanagement and groos malfeasance.
>
> It also was why Mark Eagle was gone after so badly. For he was hit right
> before the RSA monitoring team hit the ground here back last March.
>
> Anyway again your instincts are right on and I'll write more as things 
> come
> foward. But, as an old reporter I must say whenever government officials
> work as hard as these clowns have to hide something then they have 
> something
> to hide.
>
> Peace and keep at 'em.
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
> To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:03 PM
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Those Darn Sneaky Blizzards
>
>
>
> Okay, so I think I might have figured out why the Michigan Commission for
> the Blind does not want to release the audit report that we have been
> requesting. At the last NFB board meeting, Christine Boone explained that
> once an audit is conducted, the agency is given some time to fix some of 
> the
> discrepancies before the final report is released. I could be wrong about
> this, but I am wondering if the failure to release this report has 
> anything
> to do with their failed attempts at adopting a new college policy because 
> I
> honestly cannot think of anything else that the agency has been trying so
> hard to change. If there are some discrepancies are looking to fix, then
> what better way to fix them by adopting a new policy?
>
> If I recall correctly, I have heard that the audit report was first
> mentioned by agency personnel sometime last fall. And if I recall 
> correctly,
> I believe it was around this time when the college policy came before the
> Commission Board for adoption. If the agency is given a period of time to
> fix any discrepancies on the report, and if the college policy was soon to
> come before the Commission Board, then I would imagine that they would 
> want
> to push back the release of the audit report until after the Commission
> Board approved the new college policy. But the Commission Board did not
> approve the college policy, and the audit report was not released to the
> general public.
>
> And now it would appear as though the same thing is happening again. The
> college policy was to go before the Commission Board around the same time
> the audit report was to be released to the public. But once again, the
> Commission Board failed to approve the college policy, and to my 
> knowledge,
> they have yet to release the audit report to the general public. Is this
> merely a coincidence or is there something more to this connection?
>
> At yesterday's college policy meeting, I was a bit surprised and rather
> pissed that the Commission Board members in charge of heading up this 
> issue
> basically blindsided all of the students and consumers who worked hard at
> providing written feedback on the college policy by the deadline they set
> for receiving these comments. Instead of working from all of these 
> comments
> to create a policy that would work for all of those involved in this
> meeting, the Chair of the committee decided to write something up at the
> last minute the night before the meeting, and then basically slammed it 
> down
> our throats because the Commission Board absolutely needs to adopt a new
> college policy at their next Board meeting. Again, is this sense of 
> urgency
> to adopt a new college policy have anything to do with the release of the
> federal audit?
>
> I understand the Commission provides rather detailed explanations that 
> seem
> to explain things, but I am honestly getting to the point where I do not
> believe a word that they say. A friend of mine who lives in Minnesota told
> me that their state went through a federal audit this past spring, and yet
> they have already received their report and are currently in the process 
> of
> conducting public hearings on the report. So even though Pat Cannon says
> there is a problem with the process for conducting these audits as he
> explained during the Commission Board meeting on Friday, I am sorry, but I
> just do not buy it. If they are already releasing reports for this year,
> then I would think that would mean that they have already finished all of
> the reports from the previous year.
>
> As far as the college policy is concerned, I really do not have a clue 
> what
> to do next. I still think the main reason why they are looking at changing
> the existing policy is so that they can implement a means test without
> really calling it a means test. And even though we were given an 
> explanation
> of the differences between a means test and the new DELEG financial aid
> form, I am still not convinced that it is not a means test.
>
> and I'm sorry, but I'm tired of basically having everything I say be
> confronted by some counter argument without even being considered. They 
> talk
> about respecting others, and yet I still feel as though I am not being
> respected simply because I am not one of them. I am sorry, but I am tired 
> of
> trying to work with an agency that does not appear as though it has any
> respect for me. And as much as I would love to represent this organization
> on this issue, I am not sure if I have the strength to do it anymore. I 
> know
> that I am a good writer, but verbal arguments are simply not a strong suit
> especially when it feels as though they are just simply waiting there to
> argue against me without really taking the time to listen to me.
>
>
> Elizabeth
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
> Hotmail.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID283
> 26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
> _______________________________________________
> 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%40comca
> st.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/brightsmile1953%
> 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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net 