[nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy

Sun Jun 27 02:57:05 UTC 2010

Hi Joe,

What am I missing about MPAS?  Jeanette Brown sat there and defended the
Commission.  Isn't she supposed to be asking the same pointed questions that
you are?  Where is her advocacy for clients in this meeting?  I may be
blinded by my rage at her and MPAS and their impotence to deal with the
illegal behavior of MCB, day after day.  If I owe jeanette Brown an apology,
I will gladly do it in public any time or any place.  For now, though I se
her as as guilty as MCB by her complicity in their actions.  Help me out
here.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:43 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy

Ok I finished the afternoon session. I noted Leeman Jones continued
references to required performance standards and indicators relative to the
timeline and closure issue. And on several occasions both then and in the
past Gerri Taeckens asked for data to support the contentions made by mostly
staff, yet Leemon has never been able to produce data.

Now, this is exactly the type of data that  MCB is required to submit to
RSA, and indeed to the Commission Board and indeed the public in the RSA
monitoring, state plans, and annual reviews.

It is the commission folks that hasn't done its RSA homework in a timely
manner in these regards! And it is hiding this information from the
commission board and the public including NFB MI and individuals like myself
with its ludicrous FOIA denials, which, of course are totally illegal in and
of themselves.

Moreover, the counselors voted on the timeline issue when they know or
should know that a uniform timeline (not a goal) is not something that fits
all. These things as Taeckens rightfully and to her credit consistently
pointsout are a function of the Individual Plan for Employment. Note the
term "Individual" here.

Now each and every counselor speaking is supposed to be intiment with the
requirements for IPE development and related civil rights checks on
arbitrary and capricious administration. They were after all Certified
Rehabilitation Counselors and this goes into the training requirements. Did
each and every one of them flunk "IPE development 101"?

Have not a one of them referenced RSA circulars, the Rehab Act itself,
and/or had continuous improvement in training on this issue?

I simply wonder what in the world is going on here.

My goodness consumers and other non-professionals including, by the way Ms.
Taeckens seem to have a grasp of what goes into the IPE and that also
includes setting goals and effectively timelines on an Individualized basis.
It also must consider going to Lydia's continued point and others,  the
impact of multiple disabilities upon a person, sickness, and other
contingencies.

Going back to the data issue...Leemon and others wish to use this issue as
an excuse on the policy development issue and on the other don't produce the
data or the systems to actually cull data like Taeckens asks for in case
examinations. and analysis.

Other data required is again the consumer satisfaction surveys yet ours has
been so late in coming that findings would be virtually meaningless...But
again MCB was given these "homework" assignments actually with continuiing
and annual updates...And many of these assignments were missed.

Finally, on this thrust I am very proud of Fred in his standing up on the
issue. and I'm very proud of Elizabeth for effectively saying there are
obligations and timelines upon MCB staff including counselors. 

And I for one demand they meet their responsabilities.

They are a dysfunctional family there and I'm talking about the counselors
and supervisors represented in my opinion. They wish to hold the consumer
constantly responsable for standards that the staff violates routinely. In
other words these so-called professionals do not practice what they preach
on the timeliness issue over and over again.

And they wish to give anecdotal claims without supplying supporting data to
back allegations up. Good for Ms. Taeckens, Elizabeth and others for holding
them accountable. Good for Larry too in his comments at the end.

I believe in high expectations. I expect accountability by highly paid and
professionally trained staff. Oh yes by the way many of these counselors and
supervisors did have much, if not all of their education funded by MCB, or
RSA through either being consumers themselves once upon a time, or through
RSA grants, or through RSA/MCB funding for continuous improvement and
certification.

I sure know that Debbie Wilson had her switch from MSW to CRC funded through
MCB.

Man, what a bunch of hypocrities were represented with that block!

Now, before I end this diatribe I must say there are some excellent
counselors in MCB. I noticed not one of them were represented at this
meeting. And I assume that was because they are already competent in IPE
development and are or were working in the field doing their jobs, of which,
again they are highly paid for. No those are not the sherkers, or the ones
that blame consumers for all their earthly woes. Those are the good guys and
gals that Larry was right to point out that we in NFB and other orgs are
trying to protect and assist.

Bottom line though is no matter what they do or finally right the law says
what the law says.

And a consensus doesn't abrogate legal requirements that are already in the
law.

But, sadly Cannon and his gang of disfunctionals seem to contiue to violate
all sorts of laws over and over again.

Anyway I do not think frm this meeting that Ms. Taeckens was wrong, or
Jeanette Brown (as far as she went) or of course, those members of the NFB
led by Fred and Elizabeth  on this issue.

And I think we should all ask Leemon for the data to affirm the conjecture,.

(Of course he doesn't have it as he has clearly stated over and over
again...Which is my point.)

I'm reminded here of an old saying from former Senator Daniel Patrick
Monihan. He said, "People are all entitle to their opinions. But no one is
entitled to his own facts."

You see the twenty twenty process has been abused here for it puts opinions
over facts; so-called concensus over fundamental laws including the Rehab
Act itself.

I say to those counselors who don't like the Rehab Act or its clear cut
requirments then maybe, just maybe they should find another line of
employment. Perhaps they should consult with each other and draw up an IPE!

Sincerely,

Joe!

_______________________________________________
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