[nfbmi-talk] it is clear

[joe harcz Comcast]

Some things were very clear from the second half of the recording and should in my opinon take place.

-One Jeanette was correct on needs testing, but I do think that Taeckens notion of putting language in right from the Rehab Act should take place on this (ie the section that agencies are not required to have a needs test)...And that MCB does not have one and will not.

Tht is very simple.

Moreover, the notions of "must" and "may" are also correct.

Finally, Fred brought up maintainance and Leemon was correct that does apply to "room and board"...A direct link to those sections in the policy manual and perhaps even in the Rehab Act itself should be used here to clarify if not the entire language as is done with comparable benefits....

I know that folks are upset with CAP over all (as am I on other issues), but Jeanete was correct in her analysis as far as I can see.

She and others were correct too on the loan issue. But, as we all know all counselors don't seem to understand this.

In fact in my opinion the laws already exist with the Rehab Act, but the issues are created in the fact that many counselors in spite of requirements are just not intiment with this. Or don't follow the rehab act and act arbitrarily and caprisously. 

That is were CAP falls down in my mind as consumers in general often aren't afforded due process rights in a direct manner or even directory information to CAP itself. This goes in part to the failure in many, many instances to provide critical information related to a case in accessiable formats and in a timely manner.

Again I reference the fact that in the consumer satisfaction survey of 2008 that several people with case closures didn't get one piece of information in accessable format from application through so-called closure.

That would of course include things like due process procedural rights and basic directory information like CAP contact ....

Now, in that regard it is why Richard Clay and his group fought so hard for basic service delivery reforms including and accessable introductory brochure. I note it took MCB months to deliver that and it is posted on the MCB web site I think in December oof 2008. There are a few references to CAP there, and they did finally put in the 800 number for CAP.

Again though folks there are policies and there are practices. I don't think a revised college policy document that is clear on the issues that are in accord with the Rehab Act are wrong. In fact they are required. 

However, once done we still have to assure through vigilence and advocy that practices are facilitated in accordence with the law.

My problem with commissioners as they have been advised for the most part by scofflaws like Cannon is that they don't have basic education in the Rehab Act. 

I was astounded when Ms. Taeckens stated "I didn't know that" on several occasions.

Anyway folks the Rehab Act is what funds and authorizes MCB. And that is what needs to be followed along with RSA's policy guidence on the matter.

The long and short of it though is, again in my opinion Jeanette Brown was correct as far as she went.

Sorry for the rambles here. I hope people find this useful.

I am preparing to leave town for a month on Wednesday, so forgive me on all of this as I'm trying to take care of a lot of issues before I depart.

Regardless, though so long as language is consistent with the Rehab Act I do not have any issues with the college policy per se. 

It is very confusing however with all the drafts and all the emphasis on glossy language in ferreting out whether or not the college policy is always in compliance.

I, thus extend, again sympathy to Elizabeth and Fred and others in this maddening affair and in these regards.

Again there are distinctions between policies and practices.

We've got sometimes some very good policies. But, MCB sure doesn't practice them in all cases. That is for sure.

Best Regards,

Joe