[nfbmi-talk] important letter

[joe harcz Comcast]

June 23, 2010

 

From: Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

Advocate

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

 

Re: Michigan Commission for the Blind State Plans, Timely and Accessible Information, and Failure to Meet General Required Obligations Pursuant to Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended

 

To:

 

Lynnae Ruttledge, Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration

(Via e-mail)

 

Patrick D. Cannon, Director, Michigan Commission for the Blind

(Via E-mail)

MCB Commissioners:

 

Chair Jo Anne Pilarski

Vice-Chair Michael Geno  (c/o Sue Luzinski, MCB) John Scott

 Geraldine Taeckens

 margaret Wolfe

 

Dear Commissioner Ruttledge, Director Cannon, and MCB Board Members:

 

 

I am wondering why this FY 99 State Plan is the only State Plan on the Michigan Commission for the Blind web site that can be linked at:

 

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313_33130---,00.html

 

Since this is a .pdf document and since I’m sending it to MCB Commissioners who are blind and may not have the capability to convert it or readily read it with adaptive aids I’ve taken the liberty of copying and pasting it here:

 

 

 

 

June __, 1999 

Douglas L. Burleigh, Ph.D. 

Regional Commissioner 

United States Department of Education 

Region V – Rehabilitation Services administration 

111 North Canal Street, Suite 1048 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Dear Commissioner Burleigh: 

Please find attached the required attachments as indicated in the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Policy Directive 99-03 

Necessary to amend the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) 

State Plan that was approved for three years effective October 1, 

1998. The attachments amending our State Plan Effective October 1, 

1999 are as follows: 

Attachment 4.4 Attachment 4.9 (c)(1) Attachment 4.11 Attachment 4.12 Attachment 4.12 (d)(3) Attachment 4.12 (e) Attachment 4.16 Attachment 6.7 Attachment 7.4 In addition, MCB assures that it is administering its vocational 

rehabilitation and supported employment programs in accordance with 

those provisions of its currently approved title I State Plan and its title 

VI, part B supplement that remain in effect and with each of the new 

statutory requirements specified in the 1998 amendments. 

Specifically, MCB is administering these programs consistent with the 

following sections of its currently approved title I State Plan and title VI, 

part B supplement: 

Sections 1; 2.1; 2.2; 2.4; 3.3; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.6; 

4.7; 4.8; 4.10; 4.11; 4.13; 4.14; 4.16; 

5.2; 6.1; 6.3; 6.4; 6.5; 6.7; 6.9; 6.10; 

6.12; 6.15; 7.3; 7.4; 7.5; 7.6; 7.7; 8.1; 

8.2; 9.1 and 9.2 

Further, MCB assures that it is administering our vocational 

rehabilitation and supported employment programs consistent with the 

following new sections from the preprint of the State Plan requirements 

in the 1998 Amendments: 

Sections 3.1; 4.1; 4.2; 4.4; 4.9; 4.12; 4.13; 4.16 

5.1; 5.3; 5.4; 5.5; 6.3; 6.5; 6.8; 6.10; 6.11; 

6.12; 7.1; 7.2 and 9.3 

MCB held hearings on June 18, 1999 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in 

our eight regional offices. Public notice was provided through local 

newspapers and through a mass mailing which included all MCB 

vocational rehabilitation clients and interested partners throughout the 

state. Even though there was no requirement to provide public 

comment information, the comments were used to evaluate the 

proposed amendments will be given further consideration in the future, 

where pertinent. This packet was provided to the MCB Board prior to 

their June 21, 1999 board meeting for their review and comment. 

Finally, this amended plan was submitted for the State review process/ 

We ask that you approve this plan as submitted for the fiscal year 

beginning October 1, 1999. If you have questions or comments, 

please contact Jim Buscetta at (517) 373-0579 

Sincerely, 

Patrick D. Cannon 

Executive Director 

ATTACHMENTS: several 

ATTACHMENT 4.4: Views on State Policies and Administration of 

the State Plan (for State Agencies that have 

State Rehabilitation Advisory Councils 

After two years of concentrated effort the Michigan Commission for the 

Blind (MCB) developed a totally new Policy Manual that was 

implemented, with the input and approval of the MCB Board on 

January 19, 1998. For those reason few additional policy changes 

were developed during the current fiscal year. One exception is a 

policy on Affirmative Action that was recommended during our 

Technical Assistance Review in August of 1998. The initial Affirmative 

Action Policy Draft was presented at the MCB Board meeting on April 

19, 1999 in Big Rapids, Michigan. Revisions were made and the final 

Policy was adopted at the Commission Board meeting on May 

17,1999 in Lansing, Michigan. (See Appendix I) Further policy is being developed regarding the mediation process that 

was outlined in the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973. Currently, negotiations are underway with the Director of the 

Community Dispute Resolution Program, which operates under the 

State Court Administrative Office, to finalize policy to insure 

appropriate mediation services as outlined in the 1998 Amendments. 

We anticipate this policy will be complete and implemented early in the 

fiscal year beginning October 1, 1999. There are additional minor 

changes necessitated by the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation 

Act. These are language and concept changes related to the 

Individual Plan for Employment. These changes will be made in policy 

and in our casework management system. They will be presented to 

the MCB Board for input, approval and implementation early in the 

fiscal year starting October 1, 1999. 

A major effort for MCB during the next year will be developing the 

processes for implementing the key tenets of the Workforce 

Investment Act. Efforts will be undertaken to coordinate our staff 

participation in the various Workforce Investment Act Boards, including 

having the MCB Executive Director serve on the statewide board. In 

addition, we will develop a plan for deploying co-located staff at Work 

First offices throughout the state. As with all policy the MCB Board 

will be actively involved with these activities. 

Appendix I 

VR POLICY MANUAL 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 

It is the policy of the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) to 

employ, as opportunities become available throughout our 

organization, the best qualified individuals, without regard to race, sex, 

color, religion, national origin, disability, age or other categories of 

groups protected by law. We are committed to promoting equal 

employment opportunity by employing and advancing persons based 

on merit, ability and potential for development. 

MCB will continue to employ and develop employees, adhering to our 

policy of nondiscrimination which applies to all aspects of employment 

including, but not limited to the following: recruitment, hiring, 

placement, job classification, training development, promotion, 

transfer, job assignment, layoffs and grievances. Because members 

of minority groups are currently under represented in the field of 

rehabilitation, MCB will promote, initiate and support efforts involving 

colleges, high schools, community organizations and other interested 

parties to insure that highly qualified individuals, including MCB clients, 

from all under represented groups receive training in Vocational 

Rehabilitation Counseling, Rehabilitation Teaching, Orientation and 

Mobility, and any other areas that would benefit MCB clients. 

MCB will review, identify and correct those internal policies, 

procedures or work conditions that are barriers, to provide all persons 

equal employment opportunity. 

MCB will provide services to our clients without regard to race, sex, 

religion, age, national origin, color, marital status, impairment or 

political belief. 

MCB will notify staff and clients of the goal, objectives and proper 

execution of this policy and will maintain a working environment where 

all employees find equal opportunity for advancement. 

05/17/99 Section II. 

ATTACHMENT 4.9 (c)(1): Cooperation with Agencies that are not in 

the Statewide Workforce Investment 

System 

MCB is in the process of obtaining cooperative working agreements 

with various entities as indicated in the 1998 Amendments to the 

Rehabilitation Act. Already approved is an updated agreement with 

the Department of Education Special Education and Early Intervention 

Services. (See Appendix II) MCB has also begun talks with the 

Michigan Higher Education Association to determine if one agreement 

could be written for higher education, as opposed to writing an 

agreement with each institution. Further work will be done to obtain 

cooperative working agreements with the Michigan Commission on 

Hispanic Affairs and the Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs. 

Where it will be helpful to expedite services to individuals who are 

blind, we will attempt to extend these statewide agreements to local 

entities. MCB will develop standardized formats for supported employment, 

cash match and intervenor agreements as well as agreements for use 

with our community partners. These will be developed with procedural 

memorandums and will be implemented with staff training prior to the 

beginning of the fiscal year starting October 1, 1999. It is anticipated 

that staff will utilize these forms to formalize our working relationships 

with various local entities. It is also anticipated that these forms and 

activities will help to standardize services and expectations statewide. 

Appendix II 

JOINT AGREEMENT 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND EARLY 

INTERVENTION SERVICES 

AND 

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY 

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND 

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE 

The Michigan Department of Education-Office of Special Education 

and Early Intervention Services (MDE-OSE/EIS) and the Family 

Independence Agency- Michigan Commission for the Blind (FIA-MCB) 

affirm through this joint agreement a shared commitment to provide a 

continuum of coordinated education, rehabilitation, and other 

community services for students who are blind or visually impaired. 

This agreement focuses on the mandates for transition services 

described in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998, and the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The services are to 

be provided in collaboration with other state and community agencies, 

who either by mandates and/or law or local partnership arrangements, 

provide transition services for students who are blind or visually 

impaired. These services are defined as a coordinated set of 

activities, designed within an outcome-oriented process that promotes 

movement from school to post-school activities including: 

Post-secondary education 

Vocational training 

Integrated employment (including supported 

employment) 

Continuing and adult education 

Adult services 

Independent living, and 

Community participation 

Vocational Services 

The MDE-OSE/EIS and FIA-MCB agree to work together to establish 

statewide policies, procedures, and practices for services to students 

who are blind or visually impaired. These policies, procedures, and 

practices are to be based on the following principles: 

STUDENTS FIRST 

Education and support services tailored to the needs and abilities of 

the individual student with active involvement of the student throughout 

the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the Individualized Plan 

for Employment (IPE) processes. The department should investigate 

ways of collecting information on visual impairments, legal blindness, 

and deaf-blindness. 

SEAMLESS EDUCATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS 

Unified education systems linked with seamless community delivery 

systems that prepare and support students who are blind or visually 

impaired for employment and community inclusion. 

COMMUNITY CONTROL 

Local communities implementing change consistent with improved 

student outcomes, including active involvement of students, families, 

educators, MCB counselors, and other key stakeholders in the 

planning/implementation processes. 

STUDENT AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT 

Student, family, and broad-based stakeholder involvement with local 

transition planning is a shared responsibility. 

Written partnership agreements are essential for effective interagency 

service delivery. When an agreement is negotiated between the 

Michigan Commission for the Blind and any local school district, it 

should be coordinated with the Intermediate School District. Such 

agreements may include a cash-match component. 

Arrangements using non-federal dollars from state and local school 

funds may be combined for the purpose of generating additional 

federal rehabilitation dollars. The combined pool of state dollars and 

funds can then be used to support programs and services as identified 

in the written partnership agreement. The agreements and 

cash-match arrangement may be developed for an individual student, 

a local district, or an Intermediate School District. 

It is expected that all individualized student services and programs 

supported through a written partnership agreement will be developed 

through a collaborative planning effort and described in the student's 

IEP and IPE. 

Respective Roles and Responsibilities of Participants to This 

Agreement 

1. Participants will convene at least annually, and more often as 

necessary, to review, address, and facilitate resolutions of 

concern relating to transition services for students who are blind 

or visually impaired. 2. Participants will assign staff responsible for implementing the

joint agreement.

3. Participants will define a system for collection and use of 

meaningful data that includes demographics, service delivery 

patterns, and outcomes resulting from the provision of services 

and supports. Data collection and evaluation must be 

coordinated with other partners providing transition services. 4. Participants will facilitate non-duplication, interagency 

coordination/collaboration, and comprehensive service delivery. 5. Participants agree that all transition service decisions for 

students who are blind or visually impaired, related to activities 

which will impact on the other agency/group will be jointly 

developed, discussed, disseminated, and implemented. 6. Participants will develop a process to provide for annual 

evaluation of the contribution of its program and service delivery 

to the implementation of the agreement. 7. Participants will collaborate with one another in planning,

developing, and conducting in-service training.

8. Participants will be jointly responsible for assisting local schools 

and community agencies/groups with development and 

maintenance of local practices that meet the education/transition 

service needs of students who are blind or visually impaired. 9. Participants will be jointly responsible for developing a general 

guide for the planning process to develop educational plans and 

vocational plans that establish compatible goals aimed at 

providing valuable growth experiences to truly prepare the student for transition to community and adult life. Planning 

processes should facilitate student self-determination and 

informed choices in goals and services. 

10. Participants will advocate for the rights and interests of students 

who are blind or visually impaired in all education/human 

service/work force reform initiatives implemented at the state 

level. 11. Participants will be jointly responsible for addressing resource 

needs to support comprehensive transition service responses for 

students who are blind or visually impaired which result in a free 

appropriate public education coordinated with a long-term 

rehabilitation plan leading to career-path employment and 

iindependent living post-school options. Role and Responsibilities of MDE/OSE/EIS 

1. Administratively responsible for implementing federal IDEA 

legislation and Michigan's Administrative Rules for Special 

Education related to the provision of transition services, including 

monitoring. 2. Prepares and submits the required State Plan for special 

education students, which includes the provision of transition 

services. 3. Provides technical assistance and training to appropriate staff at 

the state and local levels to facilitate the coordination of 

academic, functional, vocational, and community-based 

curricula. 4. Encourages Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to invite 

vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, and other adult 

service agency personnel to participate, as appropriate, in the 

transition IEP process. 5. Requires LEAs to implement the transition services as 

determined by the IEP. Special Data Collection Information 

The Michigan Department of Education annually collects information 

on each student enrolled in special education. The data elements 

collected on each student are described in detail in the Technical 

Manual for the Special Education Student and Personnel Data Count 

for 1998. This annual data collection allows MDE to identify each 

visually impaired student within the state. Students are counted within 

their attending district. Items of personal information collected on each 

student are as follows: handicapping condition, birth date, gender, and 

ethnic code. A number of program related items are also collected on 

each student. These program items are: date of students Individual 

Education Plan, full-time equivalency in special education, special 

education classroom or teacher consultant program, and support 

services assigned to each student. Utilizing summary statistical 

programs, visually impaired student statistics can be generated. At 

this time, the department is able to identify students with visual 

impairments or students receiving services in classrooms for the 

visually impaired, teacher consultant services for the visually 

impaired, or orientation and mobility. The department currently does 

not have the ability to distinguish between visually impaired and legally 

blind students. At one time, the department collected this information. 

The department should investigate ways of collecting information on 

visual impairments, legal blindness, and deaf-blindness. 

Role of MCB in Providing Transition Services for Students Who are 

Blind or Visually Impaired 

1. Assigning staff to work with local schools and students who are 

blind or visually impaired consistent with the purpose and role 

statements as defined in The Fundamentals of Transition, (as 

amended) jointly develop by MJC/MRS and MDE/OSE-EIS. 2. Informing school personnel, students and families of MCB 

programs and services, as well as eligibility requirements and 

referral procedures for students eligible under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 3. Developing effective loccal transition service option for students 

who are blind or visually impaired which can respond to 

individual education, employment and service needs. 4. Coordinating IEP/IPE and any other prospective service plans for 

students who are blind or visually impaired which provide opportunities for self-determination and informed choice on the 

part of the student. 

The signatures below warrant that they are empowered to enter into 

this joint agreement and that it is hereby accepted. 

Family Independence Agency Michigan Department of Education 

Michigan Commission for Office of Special Education 

the Blind and Early Intervention Services 

Patrick Cannon Jacquelyn J. Thompson, Ph.D. 

Executive Director Director 

ATTACHMENT 4.11: The State’s Procedures and Activities for the 

Establishment and Maintenance of a 

Comprehensive System of Personnel 

Development to Ensure an Adequate Supply of 

Qualified Professionals and Paraprofessionals 

for the Designated State Unit 

INTRODUCTION 

MCB continues to be committed to the belief that only the highest 

qualified rehabilitation professionals should be hired to serve the blind 

consumers of this state. We will continue to use “eligible-to-become”a 

Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) as the standard requirement 

for our agency Rehabilitation Counselors and Counselor-Teachers. 

MCB will continue to work toward this standard while seeking the best 

qualified candidates for our positions. In some instances MCB may 

hire candidates who are close to this standard and assist them in 

meeting the standard as quickly as possible. We currently have an 

approved Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) 

section to our state plan. This document will provide an update and 

explain changes to the original document. 

DATA SYSTEM 

The table below indicates the number and type of rehabilitation 

personnel currently working for MCB. There are three staff who have 

received a dual master's degree from Western Michigan University in 

rehabilitation teaching and rehabilitation counseling. They are 

assigned a caseload and perform the duties of a counselor and 

teacher. The three assistant regional supervisors carry a small 

caseload. The regional supervisors do not carry a caseload but may, 

on occasion, manage a case if extraordinary circumstances warrant it. 

Table with 2 columns and 6 rowsPersonnel # of staff Rehabilitation Counselors (field offices) 12 Rehabilitation Teachers (field offices) 8 Rehab. Counselor/Teachers (Dual Degree) 3 Rehabilitation Teachers (training center) 12 Rehabilitation Counselors (training center) 2 Table endAssistant Regional Supervisors 3 

Regional Supervisors 3 

The next item is the ratio of personnel to applicants and eligible 

individuals served. At the beginning of fiscal year starting October 1, 

1999 MCB had 1250 active cases. The table below indicates the 

anticipated need for the next five years of competitive and homemaker 

cases: 

Number of consumers served in 2004 1501 

(Based on a 3% increase per year) 

Number of anticipated openings by 2004 5 

Number of field staff in 2004 with full caseloads 22 

if no new positions are filled 

To meet the anticipated need for new, qualified counselors it is 

necessary to have an understanding of the number of students who 

are expected to graduate from master degree level programs. Even 

though the number of graduates will be acceptable, steps must be 

taken by the agency to recruit these individuals and make sure they 

are on the appropriate Civil Service registers. The table below 

demonstrates the anticipated number over the next couple years: 

Table with 4 columns and 9 rowsTotal # of FY ‘99 current minority graduates enrollment students 

Michigan State 

 

University 30 10 12 Wayne State 

 

 

University 56 31 11 Western Michigan 

 

 

University 11 5 4 Table endRECRUITMENT AND RETENTION 

At the present time, we believe that approximately 62% of our staff 

meet the standard for the CRC exam. The table below looks at the 

current level of compliance of our counselors who carry a caseload 

and the anticipated need in order to be 100% compliant with the CSPD 

Table with 2 columns and 4 rowsregulations: Certified Rehabilitation Counselors 3 Master's Degree in Counseling 

or Rehabilitation Counseling 10 Need to take coursework to reach the state 

standard of qualified rehabilitation counselor 8 Table endThe agency will continue to recruit and hire persons with disabilities 

and minorities. Currently, approximately 25% of the field staff and 

central office staff are individuals with disabilities and approximately 

18% are minority. These percentages are higher than those in the 

general population and we anticipate they will remain steady. We will 

continue to work closely with the three graduate programs in an effort 

to recruit minorities and persons with disabilities. As noted in our 

approved State Plan last year, we will do what we can to work with 

undergraduate programs to encourage students with disabilities and 

minorities to consider professional rehabilitation as a career. Mr. 

Leamon Jones, MCB Regional Supervisor in Detroit has been 

designated to work as a liaison with Wayne State University in Detroit 

and the Region V Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program to 

coordinate minority individuals into the Rehabilitation Counseling 

Program. MCB also encourages all employees to participate in their 

respective professional organizations. In addition to increasing skills 

and knowledge in rehabilitation, it allows members to keep public 

sector rehabilitation visible as a place where new graduates and 

others would seek employment. 

PERSONNEL STANDARDS 

The State of Michigan does not have an established personnel 

standard that defines "qualified rehabilitation counselor". Therefore, 

MCB will relate to the national standard alluded to in the 1998 

Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That standard is 

interpreted as the equivalent to Certified Rehabilitation Counselor. We 

anticipate being able to meet that standard by the year 2004 as called 

for in our Comprehensive System of Personnel Development and as 

outlined in the grant obtained to implement this rather ambitious plan. 

MCB will continue to recruit the best-qualified candidates and, where 

deficiencies exist, we will continue to work to bring those candidates 

up to the standard. 

Current staff with an unrelated degree will be required to complete the 

necessary coursework to be eligible for the CRC exam. Our goal is to 

have everyone eligible for the exam by September 30,2004. We will 

encourage all staff to obtain the certification once they are eligible to 

take the CRC Exam. 

A survey was done last year to begin the process of determining the 

current needs of staff to meet the standard. We have 8 staff with 

unrelated degrees who will, in all likelihood, need to obtain a new 

master's degree. We have about 3-4 staff who have the educational 

requirement but may require a period of supervision from a CRC to 

meet the standard. We do not anticipate any major problems with 

identifying qualified candidates for future vacancies. There have been 

recent discussions with the leadership from the three graduate 

programs to encourage students nearing graduation to complete a civil 

service application. There is no examination but policy does not allow 

their name to be put on the register until they have graduated. By that 

time, many of them have secured employment elsewhere. 

STAFF DEVELOPMENT 

The training needs of staff are addressed in many ways. First of all, a 

training needs survey is requested from each staff person to get a 

better understanding of their individual needs. Input from managers is 

also a primary source of input for training need. 

A training grant from Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 

provides a portion of the funding needed to train staff each year. A 

major portion of this grant was based upon a training needs 

assessment done agency-wide. The objectives of that training grant 

are: 

1. To improve the job placement skills of staff to increase the 

number of competitive employment outcomes. 2. To operationalize the new federal regulations into the policies of 

the Michigan Commission for the Blind to provide better services 

to consumers. 3. To increase knowledge for counselors and teachers of specific 

disabilities. 4. Increase knowledge of computer access technology including 

the purchase, set-up, and maintenance of that equipment. 5. To increase operational knowledge of the Workforce Investment 

Act to better coordinate services to individuals who are blind. 6. To provide ongoing access to current research in the field of 

rehabilitation to keep staff aware of the latest findings regarding 

rehabilitation. To meet the training needs of those individuals required to obtain a 

new master's degree, a joint effort was put together by MCB and our 

sister agency, the Department of Career Development Rehabilitation 

Service (DCDRS) to write a grant to help pay the costs of these 

programs. This five-year grant totaling over $200,000 was written with 

input from all three graduate programs in Michigan. It will be effective 

as of October 1, 1999. The first step in meeting the CSPD 

requirements has begun. We have instructed all appropriate staff to 

submit their application to Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor 

Certification (CRCC) so that a determination can be made regarding 

their eligibility to take the exam. Once that information is gathered we 

will take specific steps toward enrolling staff in the graduate programs. 

We expect 1 or 2 people may begin fall 1999, but most will not start 

until winter or summer of 2000. 

Although MCB does not have a formal succession plan, heavy 

emphasis is being placed on preparing staff to take on supervisory and 

management roles. We are committed to identify, promote, and 

nurture leadership within the agency. Many staff have taken 

numerous classes related to supervision, management and leadership. 

MCB is presently considering an extensive leadership training course 

offered through the Capitol Quality Initiative and Lansing Community 

College during the fiscal year starting October 1, 1999. 

COMMUNICATIONS 

All training materials, instruction, and communication will be done in 

the individual's mode of preference. For our staff, that usually means 

in a format such as Braille, large print, or voice-output. Ongoing steps 

are being taken to insure that staff has access to Braille. The agency 

has secured Duxbury translational software to produce Braille for 

clients and staff. In addition, MCB will be providing refreshable Braille 

capability to staff as funding is available. Several staff have begun 

using this equipment to become more efficient. 

If the need arises for foreign or native language interpreters extensive 

efforts will be made through various means, including international 

centers in Detroit, Lansing and other major cities. Staff may also bring 

a number of other resources to bear in attempting to obtain these 

services. In Detroit we are anticipating an Innovation and Expansion 

Grant to assist Arabic students who are blind to utilize computers to 

learn English. 

MCB has several staff well-versed in sign language to better serve our 

clients who are deaf and blind. In addition we have in place 

procedures for obtaining additional sign language interpreters, as 

necessary. 

COORDINATION 

As can be seen this total training program with the In-Service Training 

Grant and the Special Grant to meet the needs of our Comprehensive 

System for Personnel Development is very extensive and in the case 

of the latter, the grant has been obtained with significant collaboration. 

MCB has not had an extensive effect on staffing through the IDEA 

Law. However, our added emphasis on transition services and our 

outreach efforts to identify students who are blind will put us in a better 

position to understand the staffing needs identified through IDEA and 

how best to meet those needs. There will be some coincidental 

collaboration by way of these working relationships with the schools 

and through the graduates of the various rehabilitation programs in the 

state. 

As indicated the MCB Board continues to be actively involved with the 

development and implementation of staff development. MCB 

continues to operate under the CSPD approved last fiscal year for 

three years. 

ATTACHMENT 4.12: State’s Assessments, estimates, goals and 

priorities; Strategies and Progress Reports 

MCB has entered into a joint effort with our sister agency, DCDRS to 

do an extremely comprehensive assessment of rehabilitation needs of 

individuals with disabilities in Michigan. We have started this process 

due to the fact that a comprehensive study has not been done in 

several years. The findings of this study will be included in next fiscal 

year’s state plan. Currently, input about the needs of clients is being 

obtained through strategic planning committees related to several 

areas of clients’ needs. The committees are as follows: 1. Skills of 

Blindness 2. Un-served and Under-served 3. Transportation and 4. 

Technology. In addition, MCB obtains significant feedback through our 

Consumer Involvement Council. We believe these various groups give 

a fairly comprehensive view of the needs of our constituents and assist 

us in planning to meet those needs. 

MCB has set a rather challenging goal of obtaining 180 competitively 

employed individuals for this fiscal year with the anticipation of 

eventually reaching a goal of 200. We plan to do this be encouraging 

those individuals who previously chose homemaker as an employment 

goal to consider obtaining employment at least on a part time basis as 

at least a possible option. We also believe that by obtaining referrals 

earlier in the education process that we might inform students about 

the benefits of obtaining employment. 

A major priority continues to be serving individuals with severe 

impediments to employment. Supported employment programming is 

vital in this area, as are services to individuals who are blind and deaf. 

To that end MCB continues to support special services for individuals 

who are deaf and blind. This program is characterized by intensive 

services by staff and purchase of service with a reduced caseload 

size. 

ATTACHMENT 4.12 (d)(3): Efforts to Overcome Identified Barriers 

Relating to Equitable Access to and 

Participation of Individuals with 

Disabilities in the Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Supported 

Employment Programs. 

MCB has identified several general and specific barriers relating to 

access of individuals to participating in Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Supported Employment Programs. The lack of transportation 

continues to be a major obstacle for individuals who are blind to obtain 

employment and even participate in rehabilitation services. Besides 

our Transportation Strategic Planning Committee, several staff are 

actively involved in local transportation advisory boards. For example, 

Our Executive Director is on the board of the Capitol Area 

Transportation Authority. In addition, the Director of Consumer 

Services participates in State Department of Transportation Planning 

Committees. Staff are involved in various local transportation groups 

and continue to advocate for accessible public transportation. 

A second major barrier is that of public attitude toward individuals who 

are blind. MCB staff continue to take every opportunity to speak to 

community, employer, professional and any other groups which might 

help overcome the negative concepts about how individuals who are 

blind function. This is a continuous educational process. Staff will 

continue to take every opportunity to provide positive public relations. 

A third barrier on which MCB will continue work is that of identifying 

students who are blind early enough in their schooling to provide some 

meaningful assistance in their educational process. We anticipate that 

our newly signed agreement should provide us with better information 

about the numbers and locations of students who are blind. It is our 

intent to assist in the planning of services to every student who is blind 

in Michigan. We believe we have the resources to achieve this goal, 

but have been unable to identify these students in a timely fashion. 

MCB will pursue this goal on a statewide basis. 

ATTACHMENT 4.12 (e): Innovation and Expansion Activities 

The primary objective of the MCB Innovation and Expansion Grant 

program is to emphasize services that produce competitive outcomes 

for our clients. However, priority will also be given to those projects 

that will provide special outreach to minority populations including 

Hispanics, American Indians, Blacks and Arab Americans. In addition, 

grants to enhance services to our most severely impaired clients will 

be emphasized. Finally, Innovation and Expansion grants will be 

considered for purposes enhancing technology for individuals who are 

blind, especially as that technology relates to adaptive computer 

equipment and Braille. 

ATTACHMENT 4.16: Mediation and Impartial Due Process Hearing 

Procedures 

MCB is currently working to secure appropriate mediation services as 

required by the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Currently, we have an approved process for handling Administrative 

Reviews and Fair Hearings. However, the 1998 Amendments to the 

Rehabilitation Act require MCB to develop and implement mediation 

services. For that reason, we have entered into discussions with Mr. 

Douglas A. Van Epps, J.D. Director, Community Dispute Resolution of 

the Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office. We 

believe we will be able to provide adequate mediation services state 

wide through his staff of trained mediators. Joining with our sister 

agency the Department of Career Development Rehabilitation 

Services we will provide a statewide in-service training program about 

rehabilitation services for these mediators. In addition to a long history 

of community dispute resolution, Mr. Van Epps organization has an 

impressive history of ADA mediation being the first of its kind in the 

nation. We believe this rich background should lead to more than 

adequate mediation services for MCB clients. We anticipate 

implementation of this service early in the fiscal year beginning 

October 1, 1999. 

ATTACHMENT 6.7: Order of Selection 

For the last three years the Michigan Commission for the Blind has 

operated under an Order of Selection. Originally, the Order was 

invoked due to some uncertainty in financial resources. MCB was also 

17 staff short due to a one-time early retirement plan. At that time it 

was felt that it was prudent to develop the Order of Selection at the 

beginning of the year and then restrict services in categories if and 

when it became necessary. The alternative would have been to 

amend the state plan during the fiscal year. This would have entailed 

new public hearings and additional approvals by the MCB Board and 

the Rehabilitation Services Administration. The process would have 

taken too long to effectively deal with a resource crisis. During the 

first year services were restricted in the two categories representing 

the least impaired individuals. These restrictions lasted only to the end 

of the fiscal year. Last year, even though provisions were made for 

restrictions in services by way of an approved Order of Selection, the 

need to implement restrictions did not materialize. We believe that 

there is now a higher level of stability with staffing and finances such 

that an Order of Selection will not be necessary for the fiscal year 

starting October 1, 1999. We are therefore not requesting an 

approval for an Order of Selection. 

ATTACHMENT 7.4: Goals and Plans for Distribution of Title VI, Part 

B Funds 

Our goal for the fiscal year starting October 1, 1999 will be to more 

effectively identify individuals who are appropriate to be served 

through the MCB Supported Employment Program. We have taken 

steps to strengthen our position in providing transition services to 

students who are blind. Many of these students are also appropriate 

candidates for supported employment. It is felt that the MCB 

Supported Employment Program will also appropriately serve a high 

percentage of those students receiving transition services. Our 

objective for this year will once again be to stress the importance of 

this program on a statewide basis. One additional aspect of our 

Supported Employment Program will be a new format for our 

Supported Employment Agreements. In the past we have been a part 

of large coalitions where all partners were basically involved with a 

uniform process. Because of the relatively small number of individuals 

with which we work, it is our opinion that we would be more effective 

developing an individualized agreement for each client. In this fashion 

the services can be designed and planned very specific to the 

individual. We will utilize a standard agreement form with the ability to 

tailor services to meet each client’s needs. These agreements will still 

obligate the agreeing party to be responsible for the provision of follow 

along services. Illustrative of the progress MCB has made in transition 

services is a renewed interest in transition services to students who 

are blind in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We believe this is a 

good example of how the provision of transition services will lead to 

the need for supported employment services. This and other similar 

situations should provide for uniform expenditures throughout the state 

for supported employment.

 

 

 

Now, what this all demonstrates is something pretty fundamental. It demonstrates that neither the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board, nor interested members of the public have had the opportunity to be engaged in let alone informed about the subsequent required State Plans or information related to them. Indeed there again have been no public hearings since 1999 in these regards.

 

Moreover, mor than ten years later apparently the Michigan Commission for the blind let alone interested members of the public, let alone RSA itself are not privy to required documents related to State Plan development or in required monitoring. As stated for example in the May 3, 2010 special meeting of the MCB Board none of the commissioners have any of the required items related to monitoring including standards and indicators. 

 

In fact they’ve asked for them or some of them openly at the last quarterly meeting. That includes the still not completed consumer satisfaction surveys, data on the college policy, and so on and so forth. They didn’t bother to ask seminal questions related to severe problems MCB has had with its “cash match agreements” or in reporting other required data effectively to RSA, but clearly have not received that data which is supposed to be remitted to them without requesting it.

 

Director Cannon’s response to these inquiries was rather obtuse and a diversion as he went on a rant against RSA for not remitting finalized monitoring reports, when indeed it is MCB’s input that seems to be wanting. Moreover, he stated then and in the public record that RSA’s findings were in a word “erroneous”. 

 

Well folks have seen I and others request required data like this for years including under the Freedom of Information Act with collateral responsibilities under the ADA and Section 504 to make this information accessible. And most requests were denied! Shoot I had to go to battle for years to get proposed MCB meeting minutes required to be provided under the Michigan Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Good form and a truly transparent agency would put information like this on the MCB web site.

 

Oh, yes and if people would look at the last partially completed consumer satisfaction survey on the same resource link listed in the beginning of this letter they will note that several surveyed consumers in 2008 which purportedly represented “successful closures” in question number two, did not receive one item from application to closure related to their case in accessible format. Not one!  Thee were no IPEs, no notices of due process rights, no truly informed consent if this simple item of civil rights compliance was not facilitated in the provisions of services as required by several laws. This would be astounding to me if I had not had a similar experience with my own case in 2001 and, and yes, I know the ADA, 504 and other rights to this information and indeed demanded it and demanded a fair hearing when I was retaliated against for a highly illegal and arbitrary case closure for demanding my rights in the first place. That is just the short story of one documented instance of civil rights violations. In demanding that MCB remit my own information, in a form that I, a blind man, who again knows his rights requested, but was denied.

 

Yet why should I expect that type of timely delivery of public information when the last State Plan information on MCB’s web site is from FY 1999?

 

To all I say here: “Violations of several laws and requirements that are self evident need not be explained.”

 

I, openly call for a thorough investigation from top to bottom of this documented “scofflaw” recipient of federal funds.

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

 

Cc: Craig McManus, Michigan Liaison, RSA

Cc: Michael Cox, and Tom Quasarano Michigan Attorney General’s Office

Cc: Larry Posont and Members National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

Cc: Joe Sibley, Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired

Cc: Richard Clay, Advocates for the Blind

Cc: Mitch Pomerantz, and Melanie Brunson American Council of the Blind

Cc: Mark Maurer, President, National Federation of the Blind and Dan Fry, Editor Braille Monitor

Cc: Tom Masseau, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services and Chair Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council

Cc: Michigan ADAPT

Cc: Several Members Michigan Rehabilitation Council

Cc: Several Directors, Centers for Independent Living